- (1.) Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and moves this writ petition unlisted, citing urgency, on leave granted. Impugned in the writ petition is letter dated 16th January, 2020 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation for encashment of bank guarantee submitted in lieu of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) development charges. He files affidavits of service to show KMDA has been served through electronic mail. It goes unrepresented.
(2.) He draws attention to the bank guarantee to demonstrate, the guarantee was furnished through bank for payment of Rs.3,19,77,858/- against demand from KMC after KMDA held that the sum is payable as its development charges. Letter dated 30th August, 2018, disclosed as annexure P17, is KMDA's letter saying that the issue of whether development charges is required to be levied by KMC, is required to be heard and considered in presence of petitioners. It is his submission that the issue has not yet been decided. As such invocation of the bank guarantee is arbitrary action on the part of KMC, a statutory body. He seeks interference as an interim measure.
(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Corporation and submits, it is for KMDA to say whether the issue has been decided by it. Meanwhile, condition precedent for sanction of plan was payment of this development fee. The plan stood sanctioned, the development made and completion certificate obtained. This is reason for invocation of the bank guarantee. There should be no interference. Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank and submits, as of this moment, the invocation is being processed. Payment has not yet been made.;