IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi MAT 421 of 2024 IA NO: CAN/2/2024 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

vs.

Mediview Diagnostic Services Private Limited & Ors.

For the Appellants/

State : Mr. Suman Ghosh, Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Moniruzzaman, Advocate For the writ petitioners/

respondents : Mr. Saptansu Basu, Senior Advocate Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak, Advocate Heard on : 24.04.2025 Judgment on : 24.04.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the State and directed against the judgment and order dated September 26, 2023 passed in WPA 5563 of 2012.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the writ petitioners sought allotment of 10 cottahs of land at Kalyani Township. Initially, allotment was granted which was set aside by the Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation. Review of such order of the Division Bench was rejected. Therefore, according to him, the initial allotment in favour of the writ petitioners stood cancelled in its entirety. Reasons for cancellation as noted by the Division Bench, in the Public Interest Litigation is that, the plot concerned over which, the allotment was sought to be made, was earmarked for the construction of Auditorium and in view of the relevant statute governing the town plan which not altered, the allotment was cancelled.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the writ petitioners initially wanted allotment of 10 cottahs for diagnostic centre. He submits that, application of the writ petitioners was directed to be considered by a learned Single Judge by an order dated April 12, 2010 passed in a writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. He draws the attention of the Court to such order dated April 12, 2010. He submits that, the Estate Manager considered the application of the writ petitioners and passed an order dated August 24, 2010. Subsequently, in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Estate Manager dated August 24, 2010, authorities considered the request for allotment made by the writ petitioners and found the same not to be acceptable by a writing dated May 27, 2011.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the order dated August 24, 2010 of the Estate Manager as also to the letter dated May 27, 2011 of the authorities. He submits that, the plot in question is earmarked for the purpose of setting up of a meeting hall with guest house public library along with shopping complex. Establishment of diagnostic centre is not contemplated by the authorities at the plot concerned. Therefore, he submits that, the application for allotment made by the writ petitioners for setting up a diagnostic project cannot be accepted. He contends that, learned Single Judge erred in directing allotment of the land in question for the purpose of construction of a diagnostic centre while the land is earmarked for the purpose of setting up of meeting hall with guest house, public library along with shopping complex.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the present policy of the State Government is to undertake allotment of land by public auction. The impugned judgment and order did not take into consideration such policy of the State.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, initially, a plot of land was allotted to the writ petitioners measuring about 10 cottahs of land for the purpose of setting up of diagnostic centre. In a Public Interest Litigation, the allotment of the site was set aside although, the allotment par se was not set aside. He submits that, the writ petitioners obtained an order dated April 12, 2010 passed in a writ petition filed by them where, the Estate Manager was directed to consider the application for allotment.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners