CALCUTTA YOUTH FRONT & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 18-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
I 
CALCUTIA YOUTH FRONT & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980-Section 353(2) 
thereof with Explanation thereto-Validity of grant thereunder of 
licence of sub-soil of Satyanarayan Park, Calcutta for implementation 
of development scheme. 
The petitioners tiled a writ petition in the High Court, challenging 
A 
B 
c 
the legality and propriety of the grant of a licence by the Calcutta 
Municipal Corporation of the sub-soil of Satyanarayan Park to respon-
dent No. 14-Messrs. Happy Homes & Hotels Private Limited-for a 
period of 30 years for the implementation of a development scheme, 
D 
namely, construction of a two-storeyed air-conditioned under-ground 
basement market and parking place. The High Court (Single Judge) 
repelled the contentions of the petitioners and dismissed the writ peti-
tion. Against the judgment and order of the Single Judge, the peti-
tioners preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High 
Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the 
decision of the High Court, the petitioners filed petitions for special 
leave before this Court for relief. 
E 
Disposing of the petitions, the Court, 
HELD: In these petitions, two questions mainly arose, namely, (i) 
F 
whether the grant of licence by the Municipal Corporation in favour of 
respondent No. 14, Messrs. Happy Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., of the 
sob-soil of Satyanarayan Park for the implementation of' a development 
scheme, namely, to hold the said market for 30 years on payment of a 
premium of Rs.30 lakhs and a licence fee of Rs.40,000 per month on 
Y certain terms and conditions, was in breach of its statutory powers G 
under sub-s. (2) of s. 353, read with the Explanation thereto of the 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and (ii) should the expres-
sion 'development work' in s. 353 (2) of the said Act, read with the 
Explanation thereto be construed to mean development work qua the 
park, i.e., such development work must be confined to the proper and 
better utilisation of the park? [991G-H; 992A-C] 
H 
987 
988 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 3 S.C.R. 
~ 
A 
Counsel for the petitioners assailed the actiop of the Municipal 
Corporation substantially on• two grounds briefly staled as (i) The 
Municipal Corporation had no power to alienate or part with possession 
of any public street, park, square or garden or the sub-soil thereof for 
the purpose of implementation of any development work, eic., and (ii) 
On a true construction of sub·s. (2) of s. 353, read with the Explanation 
~ 
B 
thereto, the development work either underground or on the surface of 
a public street, park, square or garden, must be for development and J 
improvement by way of proper and adequate or better utilisation of any 
such public street, park, etc. [992D·F) 
Shri Somnath Chatterjee, counsel for respondent No. 14, con-
c tended that the grant of licence by the Municipal Corporation of the 
'l-
sub-soil of Satyanarayan Park was a bona fide exercise of its statutory 
powers, and the construction of the underground market would not 
destroy its intrinsic character as a park and there was no warrant to 
give a restrictive meaning to the expression 'development work' in s. 
353(2) of the Act, read with the Explanation thereto. He drew attention 
D of the Court to a supplementary affidavit filed by his client, showing 
)--· 
that the structural work of the underground market had been comp-
leted and the concrete roof had been laid, and all that remained was the 
laying of a park. It appeared therefrom that the value of the work done 
so far was Rs.2.30 crores out of the estimated cost of Rs.4.50 crores, 
and the underground air-conditioned market was likely to be commis-
E 
sioned within a couple of months, and also that the respondent No. 14 
. "" 
had entered into a contract with Joshi & Associates, Architects, for the 
re-development and relaying of the Satyanarayan Park as a terrace 
garden; a letter of the Agri·Horticultural Society of India gave a 
detailed scheme for such re-location of the park as a terrace garden, 
etc. [992H; 993A·CJ 
F 
The material on record clearly showed that the intrinsic charader 
of the Satyanarayan Park as public park would not be destroyed by the 
construction of the underground market which with its raised height at 
6 feet from the road level was to have a terrace garden. Under the 
scheme, there would be no c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.