IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN WPA 11072 of 2025 Panorama Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Soumya Nag, Adv.

.

For the State: Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, AGP Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahata, Adv.

For the respondent nos. 2 to 4/WBHIDCO: Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv., Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 21.05.2025.

Judgment on: 21.05.2025.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The affidavit-of-service as filed today is taken on record.

2. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioner has challenged the correctness and/or justifiability and/or reasonableness of the memo dated 06.05.2025 as has been issued to the writ petitioner by the respondent no.

3/authority.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition some admitted facts are required to be dealt with and those are as under:

(i) On 07.03.2019 the respondent no. 2/authority published a Notice Inviting Expression of Interest (hereinafter referred to as NIEI in short) for allotment of land of WBHIDCO Land at Bengal Silicon Valley IT Hub in New Town, Kolkata on 99 years leasehold basis.

(ii) The reserved price of submission of closed bid for the said NIEI was fixed by the respondent no. 2/authority to the tune of Rs. 4.70 crores per acre as one time lease premium exclusing applicable tax, if any.

(iii) The writ petitioner quoted 18 percent over the said reserved price of Rs. 4.70 crores per acres as one time lease premium.

(iv) In the said NIEI earnest money was fixed to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs which was to be deposited along with the application for allotment.

(v) The respondent no. 2/authority found the present writ petitioner as a successful bidder and on 09.12.2020 Letter of Intent (LOI in short) was issued to the writ petitioner indicating therein the number of installments, percentage of land premium, amount payable by the writ petitioner including payment schedule which is/are supposed to be paid and/or complied with by the writ petitioner.

(vi) On 04.02.2021 the writ petitioner made payment of the first installment in terms of the payment schedule of the said LOI.

(vii) On 03.08.2021 the writ petitioner issued a letter to the respondent no.

3/authority requesting him to refund the amount of the first installment and also expressed its intention to surrender the plot in question being plot no. SB 12 on account of serge of COVID-19.

(viii) On 08.02.2022 a similar letter was issued by the writ petitioner as sent through mail expressing its intention to surrender the said plot with a further request to the respondent no. 3/authority to refund the amount of the first installment at the earliest.

(ix) On 03.08.2022 the writ petitioner, however, change his mind and by issuing a letter requested the respondent no. 3 to allow it to make payment of final installment without any additional interest.

(x) On 04.09.2024 the respondent no. 3/authority by issuing a memo to the writ petitioner declined to waive off the penalty charges.

(xi) On 12.09.2024 the writ petitioner issued another letter to the respondent no. 3/authority enclosing therewith an account payee cheque for the sum of Rs. 3,39,37,220/- in the name of the respondent no. 2/authority requesting the respondent no. 3/authority to accept such payment towards the full and final payment in respect of the proposed allotment of plot no. SB 12 with a further request for providing a chance of hearing on waiver of interest as claimed by the respondent no. 2/authority.

(xii) Ultimately, on 06.05.2025 the respondent no. 2/authority issued another memo to the writ petitioner clearly indicating the pursuant to the decision of that State Cabinet dated 21.02.2022 the imposition of penalty charges at the rate of 12.5 percent per annum cannot be waived off which is under challenge in the instant