HUMANITY AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 26-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 653 
HUMANITY AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4 782 of 2011.) 
MAY 26, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Administrative Law - Government action - Allotment of 
land by State Government, without open advertisement and 
public offer - Challenge to - The State Government issued C 
advertisement for allotment of land for setting up of an 
intergrated /CSE affiliated school to which 'SG', a cricketer of 
qreat repute, responded - A Committee of Government 
Officials considered all the applications and decided to allot 
the land in favour of 'SG' - Subsequently, 'SG', the al/ottee, o 
wrote a letter to the State Government stating that after going 
through the norms of '/CSE' norms he felt that allotment of a 
bigger plot was needed for getting affiliation and accordingly 
he made prayer for allotment of a bigger plot - 'SG' stated 
that he 'would like to surrender' the plot already allotted to him 
E 
and would at the same time 'apply for a plot of a bigger area· 
-
Within a month, the State Government allotted 'SG' a 
different plot, of a much bigger size, and in a different area, 
which was challenged by public interest litigants before the 
High Court in several writ petitions - High Court upheld the 
F 
new/second allotment of bigger plot of land - On appeal, held: 
The new allotment of bigger plot in favour of 'SG', the allottee, 
cannot be sustained - The action of the Government was one 
of granting largesse inasmuch as land of which the 
Government is owner and which was allotted is a very scarce G 
and valuable property - In the matter of granting largesse, 
Government has to act fairly and without even any semblance 
of discrimination - Admittedly, no advertisement was issued 
and no offer was sought to be obtained from the members of 
the public in respect of the new allotment of a much bigger 
653 
H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 
A plot - The second allotment was not brought about by the 
Government in its own discretion, assuming the Government 
could exercise its discretion in such a fashion but was in 
response to a written request of the allottee - The Government 
was so anxious to oblige the allottee by giving bigger plot that 
B too with no loss of time, the said allotment was made by the 
Government admittedly without verifying whether the allottee 
had surrendered the previous plot allotted to him - From the 
facts disclosed, it is clear that such surrender took place much 
later - The Government made allotment of the new plot to the 
c allottee on terms which were even more generous than the 
ones suggested by the allottee in his letter - Such action of 
the Government definitely smacks of arbitrariness and falls 
foul of Article 14 - The a/lottee selectively sought compliance 
of the /CSE norms only in asking for a bigger plot - Insofar 
0 as other norms were concerned, they were clearly flouted as 
seen in the constitution of the Trust set up by 'SG' to run the 
proposed school - Also, the new plot was marked in the 
working map as one meant for a college yet the same was 
given to the allottee for establishing an /CSE school - In 
E making the impugned allotment in favour of 'SG', the State 
failed to discharge its constitutional role - Once the 
Government had initiated the process of advertisement, it 
could not jettison the same and allot a new plot to the allottee 
without any advertisement - The allottee may be a well-known 
sportsman but does not claim any expertise as an 
F educationist - The impugned allotment of a different and 
bigger plot by the government in favour of the allottee without 
any advertisement, when initially advertisement was resorted 
· to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed 
through in hot haste, was unreasonable and arbitrary, and the 
G High Court was wrong in upholding the same - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
An advertisement was issued by the Government of 
West Bengal, Urban Development Department, 
H earmarking a plot of land measuring about 50 kathas in 
• 
• 
HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 655 
AND ORS. 
Plot No. BF-158 in Sector-I, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar), 
A 
Kolkata, for the setting up of an integrated ICSI affiliated 
school. It was stated in the advertisement that the 
' intending Organization /Institution/Body/Registered 
Society/Trust which were capable of running and 
managing such a school by their own resources, may 
B 
apply

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