Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged a Model Lease Agreement proposed by Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the purpose of stalls at Hogg Market.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is one of the stall holders at S.S. Hogg Market, Phase-II. All stall holders of Hogg Market are entitled to be treated equally. The Corporation is treating stall holders of different markets all over the city of Kolkata, differently. He submits that, there was a proposal by the Corporation to enhance the lease period from 30 years to 60 years as prevailing in some cases of the Hogg Market complex and also at Gariahat Market complex. Such proposal was approved by the Mayor. He has referred to the relevant documents in that regard. He has also referred to the transfer policy relating to a stall at the Hogg Market. He has submitted that, such transfer policy has not been uniformly applied. He has referred to agreements entered into between the Corporation with other stall holders. He has submitted that, the Corporation has entered into agreements for 60 years in respect of few stall holders with additional rights being given to such stall holders. There is no reason for discrimination against the petitioner on such parameter. Several representations made to the Corporation have not been answered by the Corporation till date. He has relied upon (M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr., 1980 AIR(SC) 1992) in support of his contention that, every action of an Article 12 Authority must satisfy the test of reasonableness. An Article 12 Authority cannot enter into a contract which is arbitrary and irrational. Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation has submitted that, the petitioner or members of the association to which the petitioner belongs, have not been discriminated. All stalls of Hogg Market cannot be compared with each other because of the nature of their location and size. The instances that, the petitioner has given with regard to agreements being entered into for 60 years, are in respect of portions of Hogg Market area which ordinarily a stall holder will not subscribe to. He has referred to such lease agreement and submitted that, the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are misplaced. He has relied upon (Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, 2003 4 SCC 579) and submitted that, an authority is entitled to exercise discretion. Exercise of such discretion need not be judicially reviewed unless, mala fides in such exercise are established.
(3.) M/S. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy has held that, the Government has a discretion in the grant of largess. In exercise of discretion a Government can grant largess, by way of negotiation. However, such discretion is not unlimited. The discretion exercised must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest.;