Sourav Ganguly was able to play the system: Calcutta High Court quashes allotment of plot for school

The Calcutta High on Monday quashed the allotment of a plot by the West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (HIDCO) to former cricketer and current BCCI President Sourav Ganguly for the purpose of establishing an educational institution (Humanity, Salt Lake & Anr v. State of West Bengal)..A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee stated took strong exception to the conduct of HIDCO during the allotment process, stating that it appeared as if Ganguly was able to dictate terms. It was not a case where the State was dealing with its property where fair procedure was needed to be followed. Therefore, it showed that bona fides were not examined. Ganguly was able to play with the system, that too not for the first time, the Court said.“Rather it was a case in which the respondent No. 9 was able to play with the system. It was not for the first time that he was able to do it.They with closed eyes had decided to allot a plot as if it was not a State property but a private limited company which was permitted to deal with its property, as per its own wish without following due process of law,” the order stated.The Court acknowledged that Ganguly has brought laurels to the country in cricket.“The country always stands by the sportspersons, especially who represent country in international events. It is also a fact that Sourav Ganguly has brought laurels for the country in cricket. But when it comes to law, our Constitutional Scheme is that all are equal and no one can claim to be exclusive,” the Court made it clear..The observation were made in an order passed in a public interest litigation claiming that the allotment was in total violation of rules, regulations, and policies for allotment of plots.The petitioners brought to the Court’s attention that in an earlier round of litigation challenging the allotment made to Ganguly, the Supreme Court in 2011 set aside the allotment while making adverse remarks on the working of the respondents..It was stated that immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court, Ganguly requested the Chief Minister of West Bengal for allotment of the plot in question for building a school of international standards. The same was complied with and the plot was allotted while following an illegal procedure. The petitioners also claimed that favouritism was evident in this case, as even the lease premium payable was reduced from ₹10.98 crore to ₹5.27 crore..It was submitted that there was no record of Ganguly applying for the plot and since he had access to the corridors of power, he made a direct representation to the Chief Minister. In fact, the petitioners averred that the arbitrary allotment was not limited to the case in question and was rather routine..On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that the government reserved the power to allot plots at its discretion and while relaxing criteria. It was further argued that since Ganguly was facing difficulties in implementing the project, he had himself surrendered the allotment. In light of this, the petition was rendered infructuous..The Court while discussing the previous litigation in the Supreme Court observed that the respondents’ access to the corridors of power was evident from the facts of the case.The Bench examined a letter written by Ganguly seeking allotment of the plot and found that the contents of the letter made it further evident that it would be used for plain and simple commercial ventures. Further, it was nowhere mentioned in the application that the allotment was for a charitable institution..The Court took strong exception to the conduct of HIDCO during the allotment process, stating that it appeared as if Ganguly was able to dictate terms and bona fides were not examined..The Division Bench criticised the exercise, noting that this was a case where the law laid down by the Supreme Court had been given a complete go-by at the whims and fancies of those in charge.The High Court reiterated that if Ganguly had been interested in development of sports, especially cricket, he could have associated with many existing sports establishments to motivate budding cricketers..Therefore, despite the plot already being surrendered, the Court quashed the allotment. Costs of ₹50,000 each were imposed on the State and HIDCO for generating litigation by arbitrary exercise of power. Token costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on Ganguly and his foundation, with the Court noting that they should have acted in accordance with the law..The Bench found it pertinent to mention that should arbitrary power still continue, the persons exercising the same will be held personally responsible.“Before parting with the judgment, we may record that in case arbitrary of power still continues, the persons exercising such powers, may be held personally responsible.”.Advocates Anindya Lahiri and Samrat Dey Paul appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Jishnu Chowdhury, Sandip Dasgupta, Chayan Gupta and Ayan De appeared for HIDCO. Advocates Amitava Mitra, Sumita Shaw and Sayani Bhattacharya represented Ganguly and his foundation..[Read Judgment]