- (1.) The grievance of the petitioners is directed against an order passed by the Joint Municipal Commissioner (G and D), Kolkata Municipal Corporation ("the impugned order"). It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order came to be passed pursuant to an earlier direction of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 197 of 2014, directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner.
(2.) Shorn of details, the facts of the instant case are as follows:- (a) The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) is the owner of the premises no. 4, D.L. Khan Road, Kolkata -700025. In or about 1987, the KMC decided to develop the premises by constructing a multistoried building with the ultimate aim of leasing out the flats on long term basis to the highest offerors. (b) Pursuant to such intent, the KMC published a brochure containing details of the proposed residential complex and also the payment schedule. The brochure published by the KMC prescribed the terms of payment which were to be adhered to by a prospective allottee upon becoming a successful bidder in respect of any of the aforesaid flats. The terms of payment provided as follows:- "1st instalment: 25% of the total offered price to be paid within ten working days after issue of allotment letter. 2nd instalment: 25% of the total offered price to be paid within four months after payment of 1st instalment. 3rd instalment: 25% of the total offered price to be paid within eight months after payment of 1st instalment. 4th instalment: 25% of the total offered price to be paid within twelve months after payment of 1st instalment." (c) Pursuant to the aforesaid publication, the original petitioner had applied for allotment of several flats in the aforesaid residential complex. In fact, the original petitioner was allotted the following six flats being C-202, C-302, D-501, D-301, D-401 and D-502 respectively. In respect of two of the flats being nos. C-202 and C- 302, it is alleged that a lease deed had been executed in favour of the original petitioner on 21 October, 2003. There is no dispute in this petition pertaining to the said two flats being flat nos.C-202 and C- 302 respectively. , (d) It is significant to mention that in respect of the allotments in favour of the original petitioner, he was issued different allotment letters all dated 8th December, 1994. The original petitioner paid the first installment towards all the four flats well within the stipulated time period but, thereafter, failed to make payment of the rest of the installments within the aforesaid time schedule. (e) Under the printed terms and conditions the KMC could extend the time of payment by a maximum period of two months at its discretion and also charge interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the extended period from the date of default; (f) It is pertinent to mention that the original petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 1177 of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court. By an order dated 21st April, 2014, said writ petition was withdrawn. Subsequently, the original petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 197 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court. By an order dated 2nd September, 2014 a Learned Judge of this Hon'ble Court admitted the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to give a hearing to the original petitioner and to consider his representation. It is in this background, that the impugned order came to be passed. (g) On a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the same has been passed after giving a hearing to the parties. The impugned order records all the facts and circumstances of the case and also addresses the issues raised on behalf of the petitioners. In passing the impugned order, the Authority concluded that, the petitioners did not deserve any lease in respect of any of the four flats. A relevant factor that weighed with the Joint Municipal Commission (G and D) in passing the impugned order was that the outstanding dues had not been paid by the petitioners for a period of more than 20 years from the date of allotment of the flats. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the original petitioner had by his deliberate inaction in making payment within the prescribed time schedule disabled himself from any right of obtaining any lease in respect of any of the aforesaid flats. It is primarily on this ground that the respondent authorities have rejected the representation of the original petitioner.
(3.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned order fails to consider the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be set aside. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Municipal Commissioner in passing the impugned order has erroneously proceeded to deal with other two units being C-202 and C- 302 which is not the subject matter of the disputes raised in the petition. It was further submitted that the findings of the Commissioner are contrary to the records and contrary to the facts of the case in concluding that the allotment of flats stood canceled in favour of the petitioners. It was submitted that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty five lacs) has been deposited by way of a fixed deposit with the Advocate-on- Record of the petitioners in a nationalized bank pursuant to an order dated 9 June, 2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court. As such, there was not default in the obligation of the original petitioner to make payment under the terms and conditions before the KMC.;