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

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen WPA 16803 of 2003 Ramanuj Pandey Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Partha Ghosh Mr. Amal Kumar Dutta Ms. S. Sureka Mr. Debashis Das For the State : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AGP Mr. Jaladhi Das Heard on : : 13.03.2025 Judgment on : 13.03.2025 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. The affidavit-in-reply as filed today on behalf of the writ petitioner is taken on record.

2. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has also filed an authenticated copy of the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Let the same be also taken on record since, the original affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is either not traceable or may be the same has not been filed.

3. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the contents of the authenticated copy of the said affidavit-in-opposition as filed today have not disputed by either parties.

4. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities commanding them to receive the balance sum of Salami for allotment of stall being Stall No. D/4 in Block D of newly constructed Mathabhanga Regulated Market Complex as constructed by the respondent no. 3 with a further prayer for making allotment of the said stall in favour of the writ petitioner.

5. In course of his argument, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to Page Nos. 19 and 20 of the writ petition being copies of the trade lincence and certificate of enlistment as issued by the Mathabhanga Municipality in the name of the writ petitioner in the year 2003. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the said two documents, it would reveal that at that material time, the writ petitioner was carrying on wholesale business of rice over a plot of land from a temporary stall.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that after creation of the said regulated market committee, a decision was taken by the respondents/authorities that the said committee would construct a market complex. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that it has been decided by the respondents/authorities that after construction of the said market complex, shop rooms would be allotted to the registered shop owners of the locality and, thereafter, excess shop rooms would be provided to the others on payment of higher amount of Salami.

7. At this juncture, Mr. Ghosh draws attention of this Court to Page No. 22 of the writ petition being a copy of the note-sheet as well as to Page No. 23 being a copy of the money receipt issued by the Secretary, Mathabhanga regulated Market Committee. It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that from the said note-sheet, it would reveal that the respondents/authorities more specifically, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 had prepared a list of traders which includes their names, allotted stall numbers and amount of Salami in lieu of such proposed allotment.

8. It is further submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that from serial no. 4 of the said note-sheet, it would reveal that the name of writ petitioner was included in the said list of traders and a provisional allotment was given to him in respect of Stall No. D/4 for which a Salami of Rs. 2.20 lakh was fixed. It is further submitted that, thereafter, the writ petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards advance which was received by the respondent no. 4 by issuing a money receipt. It is further submitted that after receipt of the said sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards advance on 11.07.2002, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 went to their eternal slumber and made no attempt to allot the said shop room though by several communications (copies of which have been annexed with the instant writ petition), the writ petitioner expressed his intension to pay the balance Salami amount and made request to the r