Form of words:
New Delhi: Players of international repute cannot claim to be special or above the law and can derive benefits from the state exclusively for commercial ventures, the Calcutta High Court said in its decision to former Indian cricket team captain Sourav Ganguly. The decision of the West Bengal government to allot the land was rejected. .
Ganguly, the current President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), was allotted land in 2013 by the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government to develop a school.
A division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the facts of the case clearly establish that the allotment made in February 2013 was in violation of the state’s land allotment policy. This was done “blindly”, “as if it was not a state property but a private limited company which was allowed to deal with its assets,” Justice Bindal said.
Bonafides of the allottees were not scrutinized nor proper procedure was followed while making allotments by the state cabinet or the board of directors of West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (WBHIDC), the bench remarked on the “momentum”. Due to which the proposal was approved in favor of Ganguly.
The decision was given on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Humanity, Salt Lake, challenging the allotment, stating that it could only be done through a public auction.
The court also did not spare Ganguly and also took strong objection to the state and corporation’s conduct in the matter, which shows that the current BCCI chief was “capable of playing with the system”.
Previous land allotment to Ganguly
This is not the first time that the state of West Bengal had allotted land to a cricket star against the rules. In September 2011, the Supreme Court overturned a similar decision of the state in 2009 to lease land in favor of Ganguly.
In its Tuesday order, the HC slammed the state for repeating the mistakes that led to the apex court quashing the final allotment.
“The facts clearly established that Respondent No. 9 (Ganguly) was in a position to lay down his conditions, as if it were not a case where the State was dealing with his property, where a fair and transparent process was required to be followed. Rather, it was a case in which the respondent was able to tinker with the system. This was not the first time that he was able to do so. This time also he was allotted plots without any advertisement.’
The bench imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 each on the state and WBHIDC and Rs 10,000 on both Ganguly and the education committee formed by him to set up the school.
The court clarified that the fine is to be deposited with the West Bengal Legal Services Authority within four weeks. However, the state and the corporation were given freedom to recover costs from officials who were responsible for the “irregular allocation” in Ganguly’s favour.
According to the court, Ganguly should have acted in accordance with the law, especially considering that arbitrary allocations made in the past were quashed by the apex court.
Read also: Delhi riots ‘didn’t happen in a moment’, were ‘pre-planned conspiracy’, says HC
Petitioner’s argument
In the PIL, the petitioner had questioned the allotment letter dated 27 September 2013 by WBHIDC, saying that there was “partisanship” in the state’s decision. It was argued that Ganguly had applied to the chief minister of the state for the allotment soon after the 2011 verdict. And following a similar procedure they were allotted land which was considered arbitrary by the SC.
On 5 February 2013, the state cabinet considered Ganguly’s request for a 2.5-acre plot in Kolkata for the construction of a school of international standard for the children of West Bengal. On 9 February 2013, the Board of Directors of WHIDCO decided to allot two acres of land to him.
After completion of formalities, an allotment letter was issued on 27 September 2013. Subsequently, the corporation also reduced the lease premium to be paid by Ganguly from Rs 10.98 crore to Rs 5.27 crore.
The petitioner argued that the plot was allotted for the construction of a school, which is for commercial use. As per the policy, the petition states that such allotment can be made only on the basis of a tender notice. However, there was nothing on record to establish that Ganguly had followed the procedure. The petitioner alleged that since he had access to the “corridors of power”, he made a representation directly to the Chief Minister.
Useless petition: Ganguly
The counsel for both VIDCO and Ganguly submitted that Ganguly had surrendered the plot and the amount deposited by him was refunded. Therefore, nothing was left for adjudication in the petition, rendering it infructuous.
Additionally, the state argued that in terms of the land allotment policy, the government was empowered to allot plots at its discretion, while relaxing the norms. And, the same was done in the case of Ganguly as he was a cricketer of international repute and proposed to set up an institute for education and sports.
However, with the PIL pending in the HC, Ganguly himself withdrew from the project. The cricketer’s lawyer said that though there was no interim order, to avoid taking risks, the project was not started. After losing interest, Ganguly finally surrendered the land in August 2020.
‘All are equal’ Law‘
The court rejected the arguments made by the State of West Bengal and Ganguly and went on to deal with the issues on its own merit as well as the conduct of the State.
The court remarked, “This is a matter in which the rules, regulations and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has been completely left to the whims and likes of the persons in charge.”
It said it appreciates Ganguly’s “contribution as a player” and his contribution to the country in cricket, but observed that “when it comes to law, our constitutional plan is that all are equal. And one cannot claim to be exclusive, are above the law and want profit from the state, especially when the question arises for allotment of plots for commercial enterprises.
It said that no one “points a finger when the government showers players with prizes and benefits on winning any tournament, but this system should not continue forever.”
The court observed that if Ganguly is interested in the development of sports, especially cricket, in which he has many achievements, there may be many state sports establishments with whom he can associate himself to inspire budding cricketers.
The bench emphasized that the land policy was meant to bring transparency in the decision-making process while dealing with public properties. But in Ganguly’s case it was violated. Therefore, it states that there is a need for a defined policy to guide on all issues so that there is no arbitrary exercise of power by applying the “formula of pick and choose”.
‘Ganguly had good access to the corridors of power’
The bench weighed in on the SC’s 2011 ruling that Ganguly’s society was not a public trust as its five members were family members residing at the same address. That decision also observed that Ganguly may have been a well-known player, but did not have expertise as an educationist.
“As is evident from the previous litigation, respondent No. 9 (Ganguly) had good access to the corridors of power, which is much larger than the facts of the case,” the court said.
The judges observed that in his application submitted to the Chief Minister, Ganguly clearly mentioned that he had sought the plot for a commercial enterprise and not for any charitable purpose.
The court remarked, “It makes interesting reading as if the assets of the state were to go to a charity and that too to a commercial enterprise.”
It also expressed displeasure over the reduction of the lease amount from Rs 10.98 crore to Rs 5.27 crore and the change of location of the plot on Ganguly’s request. Further, the authorities took no action even though Ganguly retained the plot without seeking extension of time to start his project. This, the court observed, also flouted the rules under the land allotment policy.
To defend the state – that it has discretionary powers to relax procedures in special cases – the court responded that such an argument would not “save the illegal allotment made in favor” of Ganguly, which the court said. held, one was “arbitrary”. exercise power over this fact. “
(Edited by Paramita Ghosh)
Read also: Indians refused to play for fear of Kovid, Shastri did not ask for OK for book release: Ganguly
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.