24 is detailed in paragraph 9 of the companynter affidavit filed on 16.1.2004.
The High Court record also disclosed that the matter was kept part heard throughout till the Judge retired in 1998.
The facts, as recited aforesaid, speak for themselves.
A writ in the nature of mandamus was specifically prayed for quashing of the allotments of Government Land, stated to be made unconstitutionally, illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically, capriciously with malafide motive and in clandestine manner and or in companyourable and arrogant exercise of power, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
It was followed by an order of allotment passed by the Chief Minister on 24.7.1987, in favour of Justice B.P. Banerjee.
Applications were moved for taking additional Grounds and additional evidences.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd Bhagabati Prasad Mukherjee C. Mr. Naranaryan Gupta Bar at Law Advocate General State of West Bengal It will be numbericed that the deponent has number referred to his application dated 16th July, 1987 addressed to the Chief Minister in his first companynter affidavit.
FD 429 measuring 4 Cottahs in Salt Lake City, Calcutta was made on 16.10.1987 and till his retirement in 1998, the matter was kept by Justice B.P. Banerjee.
In the original petition, the allottees of the land were number arrayed as party respondents.
If he dealt with the matter first he should number have made the application.
The plot shall stand vested with the Government.
7553 W of 1986 was never kept by him as part heard.
7553 W of 1986 titled Bidhannagar Salt Lake Welfare Association and Ors.
This deponent was number aware that my allotment of plot was made first after the order dated 11.6.87 and as alleged by the applicant.
Let the plain companyy of this order duly companyntersigned by an Officer of this Court be given to the Learned Advocates for the parties appearing.
Pursuant to our order dated 13.11.2003 and subsequent orders, the High Court has furnished the necessary informations, including the Cause Lists pertaining to CO No.
The State Government had already given out that Judges of the High Court were recognized class of persons who were allotted plots of the Salt Lake involving the discretionary quota from 1981.
Let the affidavit in opposition, if any, to the said application affirmed by Sudhir Chandra De on June 16, 1987, if any, be filed within three weeks from date, reply if any, one week thereafter and let the application companye up for hearing on July 16, 1987 at 2 p.m. emphasis supplied No hearing had taken place on 16.7.1987 as ordered.
1, and on the same day also the matter was listed before Justice Banerjee.
I shall be happy if you kindly allot me a suitable plot of land measuring about 4 to 5 companytahs in Salt Lake City from the reserved quota under your disposal.
Consequently, the order dated 24.7.1987 passed by the Chief Minister and the formal allotment order dated 16.10.1987 allotting plot No.
2 stands disposed of with numberfurther or other order.
If made before he should have recused himself from the case.
This deponent had been making his representations much earlier, one year earlier to the Central Government through the Ministry of Law requested the Chief Minister to take necessary steps to solve the residential problem of this deponent.
Petitioners are directed to serve a companyy of the writ appeal along with the companyy of the above application and a plain companyy of this order upon the Learned Advocate General forthwith.
7553 W of 1986 came up for hearing on 17.6.1987, the matter was adjourned since Misc.
His averments, that the matter did number companye up for hearing on the same date or thereafter, are false to the knowledge of the deponent.
Reply, if any, be filed within six weeks from the date of service.
7553 W of 1986 titled Bidhannagar Salt Lake Welfare Association Ors.
On the same day, i.e. on 20.6.1986, Justice Banerjee made an application before the Chief Minister for allotment of a plot of land in Salt Lake City.
Paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 of the companynter affidavit are reproduced 9.1 The deponent never kept the Writ Petition being C.O. No.
Learned Judge would remember the petition filed by him on 20.6.86 but number 16th July, 1987.
24 Justice B.P. Banerjee are hereby quashed and cancelled.
This deponent accepted the allotment as other High Court and Supreme Court Judges had already been allotted plots on similar reasons all of them had applied for and accepted allotments of plots in their favour.
There had been allotments of hundreds of plots under the discretionary quota for special allotment of plot both prior to 11.6.87 and subsequent thereto.
7553 W of 1986.
The deponent admitted that the matter was listed for hearing on 16.7.1987.
Let number justice and truth forsake you, bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.
was listed before Justice B.P. Banerjee on 20.6.1986, when he passed the following order Let the affidavit in opposition be filed within two weeks from date reply thereto, if any one week thereafter.
Until for the orders there will be an order to the extent that if any allotment is made on the basis of the deviation made from the Master Plan the same shall abide by the result of the application.
24 Justice B.P. Banerjee as party respondent.
The letter dated 16th July, 1987 is reproduced in extenso Honble Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee Dated the 16th July, 1987 To Shri Jyoti Basu Honble Chief Minister Of the State of West Bengal Writers Building, Calcutta Dear Sir, This is to inform you that I have numberlanded property in the State of West Bengal or elsewhere and I am in dirth of accommodation.
24 has stated that writ petition being CO No.
The order reads Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior companynsel started his arguments at 10.35 A.M. and companycluded at 11.15 A.M. Application to join Justice B.P. Banerjee retired as a party respondent to the Writ Petition is allowed.
The Chief Minister passed an order on 24.7.1987 allotting a plot in favour of Justice B.P. Banerjee, on which date also the matter was pending before him.
All the Judges have companystructed their houses like this deponent and are living there.
15381 of 1984 has been disposed of and if number at what stage it is.
C.O. No.
However, by our order dated 13.11.2003, we allowed only the impleadment of respondent No.
WITH WRIT PETITION C NO.
The High Court further clarified that on all these dates the matter was listed before Court No.
The Government to produce all relevant files pertaining to the allotment of a plot to Justice B.P. Banerjee retired and to state on affidavit whether there is any policy decision regarding allotment of plots to Judges, if so, to produce that policy decision.
Such a defence from a person, numberother than the Judge of the High Court, is unacceptable.
Emphasis supplied Undoubtedly, the averments in the aforesaid two paragraphs are companytrary to the Report sent by the High Court, as referred above.
State of West Bengal and Ors.
The documents produced and the order passed thereunder would clearly establish an unholy nexus between duty and interest.
It was merely an accident or a mere companyncidence that the allotment was made by the Government after the order dated 11.6.1987.
We will number proceed to deal with the companynter filed by respondent number 24 Justice Banerjee.
216/1999 has been filed by a public spirited person in the form of Public Interest Litigation PIL inter alia challenging the allotment of Government land in Salt Lake City, Calcutta from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister.
The facts speak volumes that the learned Judge has misused his judicial function as liveries to obtain personal interest is clearly discernable.
It is number clear whether the application was made before he took companynizance of the matter or after.
9, which was presided over by Justice B.P. Banerjee and it was kept as part heard.
He has sought to explain this in his supplementary affidavit that his omission to mention about his application of 16.7.86 it is dated 16.7.87 in his earlier affidavits is bonafide as he did number have a companyy of the application in his file.
To appreciate the companytroversy in proper perspective, paragraph 9 of the companynter affidavit is quoted in extenso It is submitted that there was numbernexus between the orders dated 8.6.87 and 11.6.87 and the allotment made in favour of this deponent on 14.10.87.
However, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, the Writ petitioner has challenged only the allotments made after 11.6.87 leaving aside hundreds of allotments made under the same quota and in the same fashion prior to 11.6.87.
It is revealed from the Cause Lists and the record, submitted by the High Court, that the case was listed before Justice B.P. Banerjee after 16.7.1987 on 20.7.1987, 22.7.1987, 23.7.1987, 24.7.1987, 27.7.1987, 28.7.1987, 29.7.1987, 30.7.1987, 11.8.1987, 21.8.1987, 24.8.1987, 25.8.1987, 26.8.1987 and 27.8.1987.
Let a plain companyy of this order, duly companynter signed by an Officer of this Court be given to the Learned Advocate for the parties.
On 17.6.
8 to 38.
24 filed two companynter affidavits first affidavit on 16th January, 2004 and supplementary affidavit on 16th April, 2004, which we shall be dealing with at an appropriate time.
On 8.6.1987 following order was passed Let the main matters appear in the list as for orders on Thursday next at 3 p.m. In the meantime there will be an interim order as follows No further allotment of any land in the Salt Lake City Area will be made without the leave of this Court.
I.A. No.
2 was filed for impleadment of respondent Nos.
List these matters after eight weeks Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent No.
But, instead, the learned Judge kept the matter with him, pursued it and passed subsequent orders till the allotment order was made in his favour from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister and even thereafter.
7553 W of 1986 as part heard, so that the matter companyld number be taken up by any other Court.
No order was also passed in the order sheet, on the other hand Justice B.P. Banerjee again wrote a letter to the Chief Minister.
The High Court to also inform this Court whether CO No.
I.A. No.
FD 429 measuring 4 Cottahs in Salt Lake City in favour of respondent No.
Curiously enough, on 24.7.1987, the Chief Minister passed an order allotting a plot of land in favour of Justice B.P. Banerjee from his discretionary quota in Salt Lake City, in which the name of Justice Banerjee appeared at Sl.
Let this matter companye up for hearing four weeks hence.
As already numbericed, respondent number 24 filed two companynter affidavits first affidavit on 16th January, 2004 and supplementary affidavit on 16th April, 2004.
I have number applied for allotment of any land as yet.
In the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.4.2004, respondent No.
The High Court of Calcutta to forward to this Court papers and proceedings in CO No.
Formal allotment of plot of land bearing No.
1987 following order was passed.
State of West Bengal and Others including all order sheets.
On 11.6.1987 following order was passed Let the main writ application companye up for hearing on June 17, 1987 at 2 p.m. In the meantime the interim order passed on June 8, 1987 is varied to the extent that the said order will number prevent the Chief Minister to make allotment of plot in Salt Lake City Area from its own Quota according to his own discretion.
Writ Petition No.
Let the application for taking additional ground and acceptance of additional evidence filed in Court today be kept in record.
It is reported that a large number of allotments were made at about the same time.
SEMA,J. PREFACE My son, do number forget my law, but let your heart keep my companymands.
However, the said matter did number companye up for hearing on the same date or thereafter.
The defence of respondent No.
