Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vishwakarma Paswan And Ors vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 16 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :-
The Hon'ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN
WPA 16432 of 2023
Vishwakarma Paswan and Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Adv.,
Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick, Adv.
For the State/respondents: Mr. Chandi Charan De, ld. AGP,
Mr. Sadhan Haldar, Adv.
For the respondent nos. 2 to 4/: Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv,
WBHIDCO Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.,
Mr. Saaquib Siddiqui, Adv.
Hearing concluded on: 10.06.2025.
Judgment on: 16.06.2025.
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -
1. By filing the instant writ petition the writ petitioners have prayed
for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities
more specifically against the respondent no.4/authority for withdrawing
and/or cancelling and/or rescinding the memo dated 18.01.2023 along
with other ancillary reliefs. It is pertinent to mention herein that by
issuing the said memo dated 18.01.2023 the respondent no.4/authority
found that the writ petitioners are not eligible to get allotment of land
under Type I category on account of non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria
2
which according to the said respondent no.4/authority is /are reserved
for West Bengal Government Employees (including police) only.
2. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some admitted facts
leading to filing of the instant writ petitioner are required to be dealt with
and those are as follows:-
i. On 12.02.2021the respondent no.2 i.e. West Bengal Housing
Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as ‘HIDCO’ in short) published a notification
inviting applications for allotment of two categories of land
namely; Type I and Type II in favour of Housing Cooperative
Societies as would be formed under the West Bengal
Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
said “Act of 2006” in short).
ii. The allotment of land would be for 99 years on lease.
iii. In the said notification Type I is meant for Housing
Cooperatives formed exclusively by Government Employees
(including police) and Type II is meant for Housing
Cooperatives formed by persons not belonging to Type I.
iv. The writ petitioners, most of whom are/were in the pay roll of
Food Corporation of India and one being in the pay roll of
Directorate General Civil Aviation (Eastern Region) and
another in the pay roll of Labour Welfare Organization,
Government of India formed a Housing Cooperative Society
under the said Act of 2006 and thus applied for allotment of a
3plot of HIG land in Type I Category with the respondent
no.2/authorities.
v. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure as published
by the respondents a lottery was held on 03.08.2021 wherein
the applications of the writ petitioners was selected through
draw of lots in respect of Plot II -B -487.
vi. Pursuant to a memo dated 18.08.2021 the writ petitioners
submitted relevant documents with the HIDCO. According to
the writ petitioners they did not get any reply from the HIDCO
regarding further course of action in respect of the
aforementioned allotted plot of land and thus on 07.03.2022
a representation was submitted on behalf of the writ
petitioners with the respondent no.3/authority.
vii. On 30.08.2022 the writ petitioners were served with a notice
by HIDCO regarding cancellation of application for allotment
of the aforementioned plot on account of alleged non-
fulfillment of eligibility criteria for Type I Category since
according to the HIDCO the members of the housing
cooperative society as formed by the writ petitioners are all
Central Government Employees. By the said notice the writ
petitioners were asked to give a reply within a specified
period.
viii. On 25.10.2022 the writ petitioners submitted their reply with
the HIDCO.
4
ix. The HIDCO by issuing a memo dated 18.01.2023 however
cancelled the applications of the writ petitioners regarding the
allotment of aforementioned plot which is under challenge in
the instant writ petition.
3. In course of hearing Mr. Barman, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this
Court to page nos. 28 to 49 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the
brochure as published by the HIDCO for allotment of land. In course of
his submission Mr. Barman submits that on conjoint perusal of page
nos.29, 31, 38 and 40 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that it
has been clearly indicated that HIDCO proposed to allot land by way of 99
years lease in respect of Type I Category in favour of the Housing
Cooperative formed exclusively by the Government Employees (including
police). It is submitted by Mr. Barman that from page no.40 of the instant
writ petition it would reveal that HIDCO defined Government Employees
(including police) which includes employees of ‘all statutory bodies in West
Bengal’.
4. At this juncture attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph no.7
of the instant writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. Barman that from
paragraph no.7 of the instant writ petition it would reveal further that out
of 8 applicants, 6 applicants are/were working under Food Corporation of
India (‘FCI’ in short) and other two applicants are/were working for gain
in the Civil Aviation Department and in the Labour Welfare Association
respectively and further all the applicants at the relevant time were posted
5
in the State of West Bengal and therefore the applicants come under the
category of Government Employees (including police) as defined by HIDCO
in the said brochure. It is thus submitted by Mr. Barman that while
issuing the notice dated 30.08.2022 vis-à-vis the memo under challenge
dated 18.01.2023, the HIDCO has failed to visualize that the writ
petitioners being the applicants have fulfilled the eligibility criteria and
thus by not considering the same in the perspective of the provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India the respondent/authorities had
made an improper discrimination by way of class legislation which is
arbitrary in nature.
5. Drawing further attention of this Court to the memo dated
18.01.2023 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition it is
further argued by Mr. Barman that Clause XII of general terms and
conditions of the said brochure has been wrongly invoked by the HIDCO
inasmuch as the writ petitioners have not committed any factual errors
and/or submitted incomplete supporting documents and/or information
while submitting their applications for allotment of the said plot of land.
6. It is thus submitted that the respondent no.4/authority while
issuing memo dated 18.01.2023 was persuaded by extraneous materials
and therefore interference of this Court is very much required in judicial
review.
7. Drawing attention of this Court to the report supported by affidavit
as submitted by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and as affirmed on
27.09.2023 it is further submitted by Mr. Barman that the maxim ‘
6
noscitur a sociis ‘ has got no manner of application in the instant lis in
view of the fact that on perusal of the definition of ‘Government Employees
(including police)’ available in the said brochure it would reveal that the
writ petitioners who are/were working for gain mostly in undertaking of
the Central Government are/were not expressly debarred from making
such applications in view of the fact that the writ petitioners are/were all
working for gain in the State of West Bengal in statutory bodies. In
support of his contention Mr. Barman has placed reliance upon the
following three reported decisions namely:-
i. Pradeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana etc vs. State of Punjab
and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 SCC 511;
ii. Union of India vs. Manraj Enterprises reported in (2022) 2
SCC 331;
iii. D.S Nakara and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in (1983)
1 SCC 305.
8. It is thus submitted by Mr. Barman that the action of the HIDCO
authorities and its functionaries tantamounts to class legislation which is
opposed to the constitutional mandate as embodied under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
9. In his next fold of submission Mr. Barman again requests this
Court to look to the brochure, a copy of which has been annexed with the
instant writ petition at page nos. 28 to 49. It is submitted by Mr. Barman
that on careful scrutiny of the said brochure it would reveal that the
HIDCO authority had not disclosed any rational object for the said alleged
7reasonable classification and thus the action of the HIDCO authority
failed to satisfy the twin tests of classification which is founded on an
intelligible differentia.
10. It is thus submitted by Mr. Barman that the action of the HIDCO
authority and its functionaries most illegally and illogically distinguished
the writ petitioners from group of persons who come under the definition
of ‘Government Employees (including police)’ as mentioned in the said
brochure.
11. In support of his contention Mr. Barman further places his reliance
upon the following reported decisions namely:-
i. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. National South Indian
River Interlinking Agriculturist Association reported in
(2021) 15 SCC 534.
ii. Mahabir Auto Stones and Ors. vs. Union of India and
Ors. reported in (1990) 3 SCC 752.
12. Per contra, Mr. Majumdar, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate submits before this Court that from
paragraph no.7 of the instant writ petition it would reveal that the
applicant no.VII, Amit Kumar and applicant no. VIII, Aradhana Pandey
are/were in the pay roll of Civil Aviation and Labour Welfare Association
of India and thus by no stretch of imagination they can be said to be
employees of statutory bodies in West Bengal. On the contrary the said
two applicants are/were in civil service within the meaning of Article 309
of the Constitution of India.
8
13. In course of his argument Mr. Majumdar draws attention of this
Court to page no.32 of the instant writ petition. It is submitted by Mr.
Majumdar that from different clauses of the said scheme it would reveal
that for HIG category, each member of the Housing Cooperative Society
must have income above Rs. 80,000/- however from the pay slips as have
been annexed with the instant writ petition it would reveal from page
no.56 that one of the applicants namely; Aradhana Pandey’s gross salary
was Rs.69,354/- at the relevant point of time which is much less than the
parameters of income as mentioned in the scheme as embodied in the
said brochure. It is thus argued by Mr. Majumdar that through the said
applicants formed a Housing Cooperative Society with the requisite
number of members as per proviso of Section 16 (3) of the said Act of
2006 but on account of non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria of one of
its members, it may safely be held that the writ petitioners are not
otherwise eligible for seeking allotment.
14. In course of his submission Mr. Majumdar also draws attention of
this Court to the definition of ‘Government Employees (including police)’ as
mentioned in the said brochure. It is submitted by Mr. Majumdar that on
careful perusal of the said definition it would reveal that the object of
HIDCO was to grant allotment of Type I category of land basically for the
employees (including the retired employees) of Government of West Bengal
and its functionaries and instrumentalities including the employees of
local bodes in West Bengal who have domicile in the State of West Bengal
basically for the purpose of their employment. It is thus submitted by Mr.
9
Majumdar that the classification as has been done by the HIDCO may be
held to be just and reasonable in relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the HIDCO which is a fully owned company of Government of
West Bengal.
15. It is further submitted by Mr. Majumdar the principle of ‘ noscitur a
sociis’ squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the instant case
and there cannot be any justification to interfere with the memo dated
18.01.2023 inasmuch as the writ petitioners have failed to make out a
case where equals have been treated differently without any reasonable
basis.
16. It is thus submitted by Mr. Majumdar that the action of HIDCO
does not come under the periphery of class legislation as wrongly alleged
on behalf of the writ petitioners.
17. In course of his submission Mr. Majumdar places reliance upon
following reported decisions namely:-
i. Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India reported in
(2023) 4 SCC 312;
ii. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Trivandrum With Assistant Commissioner
(Assessment) and Anr. vs. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. With We Six
Traders and Ors. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Anr.
reported in (2017) 7 SCC 540.
18. It is thus submitted by Mr. Majumdar that in the case in hand
HIDCO authority has duly fulfilled the basic conditions of reasonable
10
classification and therefore there cannot be any justification to interfere
with the order impugned.
19. Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent/State adopted the argument of Mr. Majumdar.
20. Since the learned advocates for the contending parties have placed
much reliance upon the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India and since the action of the respondent no.4/authority while issuing
the memo dated 18.01.2023 is required to be tested with the touchstone
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India this Court at the very outset
proposes to look to the said Article. Article 14 of the Constitution of India
states that:-
“Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that:
14. Equality before the Law.- The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of thelaws
within the territory of India.”
21. At this juncture this Court proposes to look to the reported decision
of S. Seshachalam and Ors. vs. Chairman Bar Council of Tamil
Nadu and Ors. reported in (2014) 16 SCC 72 wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court while dealing with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India held thus:-
“21……………………………………………….
Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification. The classification, however, must not be “arbitrary,
artificial or evasive” but must be based on some real and substantial
bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are
11treated differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals
and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not apply. Class
legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by
conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily
selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the
same relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom
the privilege is conferred and the persons not so favoured, no
reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found
justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from
such privilege.
22. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the
legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends. But
classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”. It must
always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing a just
and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
legislation. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following
two conditions: firstly, the classification must be founded on the
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group. Secondly, the
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the
classification and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is
necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the Act. It is only when there is no
reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such
classification may be declared discriminatory.”
22. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles of law as enunciated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove if I look to the
brochure as published by the HIDCO it reveals that in the said brochure
12
the HIDCO proposes to allot Type I plots of land on lease for 99 years to
the Housing Cooperatives formed exclusively by the ‘Government
Employees (including police)’. In the later part of the said brochure the
HIDCO defined the term ‘Government Employees (including police)’ in the
following manner:-
“The term ‘Government Employees (including Police )’ will be defined
as follows:-
i. All West Bengal Government employees, including police.
ii. The teaching and non-teaching employees of Government of
West Bengal aided educations institutions.
iii. Employees of :
a. Statutory bodies in West Bengal
b. Government of West Bengal Undertakings
c. Panchayats including Panchayat Karmee within
the state of West Bengal
d. Municipal Corporations/Municipalities, local
bodies etc. within the state of West Bengal
e. West Bengal State Government pensioners/family
pensioners.
f. Pensioners/family pensioners of West Bengal
State aided non-government educations
institutions, statutory bodies/State Government
undertakings/Panchayats/ Municipal
Corporations /Municipalities/ Local Bodies etc.”
23. As noted hereinabove in course of his argument Mr. Barman put
much emphasis on the words ‘Statutory Bodies in West Bengal’. It has
been extensively argued by him that the writ petitioners who are basically
the employees of Food Corporation of India fall under the category of
13
‘Employees of Statutory Bodies in West Bengal’ inasmuch as the
applicants who are the writ petitioners in the instant writ petition are all
posted in West Bengal and thus by no stretch of imagination the writ
petitioners can be debarred on the ground that since they are employees
under the Central Government they are not eligible to make application
for allotment of land in Type I category by forming a Housing Cooperative.
It has also been noted in the foregoing paragraphs that it is the specific
case of the writ petitioners that the principles based on the maxim
“noscitur a sociis” has got no manner of application which is to be tried to
be controverted by Mr. Mujumder and by Mr. Dey in course of their
respective arguments.
24. This Court has meticulously perused the definition ‘Government
Employees (including police)’ as available in the said brochure as
published by the HIDCO. On careful perusal of the said term including
other clauses of the said brochure it appears to this Court that it is the
every intention of HIDCO to keep Type I category of land reserved for
allotment for housing cooperatives formed by the employees of the
‘Government of West Bengal (including police)’, the teaching and non-
teaching employees of the Government of West Bengal aided educational
institutions, the employees of the Government of West Bengal
undertaking, the employees of local bodies including Panchayats in the
State of West Bengal and the retired employees i.e. pensioners, including
family pensioners of State of West Bengal Government employees or its
instrumentalities and/or local bodies and Panchayats. Admittedly the
14
said definition includes statutory bodes in West Bengal. It is admitted
position that it has not been specified that such statutory bodies cover
the statutory bodies of the State or Union of India or both but on overall
reading of the said definition it appears to this Court that it is the very
much intention of HIDCO to include the employees of statutory bodies of
the Government of West Bengal in the said definition.
25. It further appears to this Court that in the event the principles of
maxim ‘noscitur a sociis’ is applied in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case this Court has no hesitation in mind that by using words
‘Statutory Bodies in West Bengal’ HIDCO authority never meant to say
that the statutory bodies under the Central Government or Union of India
are included in the said definition. This Court further considers that in
the event the said aforementioned words ‘Statutory Bodies in West Bengal’
are looked from the angle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India it
appears to this Court that if the ’employees of the statutory bodies in
West Bengal’ is construed as ’employees of statutory bodies of the Central
Government and/or Union of India posted in West Bengal’ that will lead to
an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a
class of persons keeping aside a large number of persons (who are Central
Government employees posted in West Bengal) all of whom stand in the
same relation. It thus appears to this Court that in the event the
argument on behalf of the writ petitioners is accepted by holding that the
’employees of the statutory bodies in West Bengal’ includes ‘the employees
of statutory bodies of the Union of India and/or Central Government
15
posted in West Bengal’ it can safely be held that such classification is not
reasonable and on the contrary it tantamounts to a class legislation which
makes improper discrimination.
26. It thus appears to this Court that the classification as made by
HIDCO while defining ‘Government Employees (including police)’ is
squarely founded on an intelligible differentia.
27. In order to understand whether the action of HIDCO in defining the
‘Government Employees (including police)’ has got any rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved by it, it appears to this Court that the
HIDCO in discharging its executive functions has kept a portion of the
new township for allotting the same on 99 years lease for the employees
and/or retired employees who have served either the Government of West
Bengal and/or its instrumentalities and/or its aided schools and/or the
local bodies and Panchayats situated in the West Bengal. This Court has
also noticed from the said brochure as has been annexed with the instant
writ petition that HIDCO has kept Type II plots of land for the other
persons who do not come under the aforementioned definition.
28. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Majumdar that HIDCO, a fully
Government of West Bengal owned company, has been entrusted with the
development of infrastructure of the acquired land for the purpose of
setting up of a new township and the said fully owned Government of
West Bengal company in discharge of its administrative action has kept
certain portion of land for the employees who come under the
aforementioned definition on account of their long domicile in the State of
16
West Bengal for the purpose of their employment by allotting the said
land by executing deed of lease for 99 years at the premium as per
prevailing market rate and not at a subsidized rate.
29. It thus appears to this Court that the object of allotment of Type I
category of land to a particular class of person can no way be called
unreasonable, irrational and/or without any substantial basis. It further
appears to this Court that while making such classification the HIDCO
authority is successful in showing substantial basis in making such
classification which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be
impermissible and arbitrary. It is well settled that the action of the State
or of the instrumentalities of the State in exercise of its executive power,
must be informed by reason. In appropriate cases, actions uninformed by
reasons may be questioned as arbitrary in a proceeding under Article 226
of the Constitution.
30. However, it appears to this Court, at the outset, that in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case the HIDCO has followed the basic
principle of rule of law by applying the rule of reason, the rule against the
arbitrariness and discrimination and rules of fair play and natural justice
by treating equals indifferently. It further appears to this Court that if the
writ petitioners who are the employees of the statutory bodies of the
Union of India and/or Central Government are permitted to be considered
to come under the definition of ‘Government Employees (including police)’
that would tantamount to improper discrimination by conferring special
privileges upon a class of person arbitrarily from a large number of
17
persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the persons not so
favoured. It thus appears to this Court that the object of HIDCO in
classifying the equals without any discrimination is based on sufficient
reason without having any flavour of favouritism to any particular class of
persons in exclusion of others.
31. This Court thus holds such action of HIDCO qualifies the second
criteria regarding reasonable classification in accordance with the
provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
32. In further considered view of this Court the reported decisions of
Pradeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana (supra) and Manraj Enterprises
(surpa) have been passed in different perspectives and thus the said two
reported decisions have got no manner of application in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. It further appears to this Court that
the reported decisions of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (supra) and D.S
Nakara (supra) practically supports the case of HIDCO authorities.
33. This Court thus finds no merit in the instant writ petition.
34. Accordingly the instant writ petition is dismissed.
35. There shall be however no order as to costs.
36. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be
given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)