The Calcutta high court quash down the allotment of plot to Mr. Sourav Ganguly (renowned cricketer) presently chairmen of BCCI .
Allotment made by West Bengal housing infrastructure development corporation (HIDCO) .
Court also imposed costs on West Bengal state government and HIDCO of Rs.50,000 each and nominal cost for Sourav Ganguly for not acting in accordance with law .
Exxpressing its disappointment , court opined that Sourav has made the favourable terms and played with the system . How can he get the plot without presenting the proper application before state authority . It is state’s property a fair and equitable process must be followed .
Great thoughtlessness showed on part of state , it is state’s land and not pvt. Ltd. Company , distribution of land must be followed by due process and with great care and caution .
The court admitted the fact that ganguly brought the laurels to the nation and glorified the Indian cricket by his optimism . But as per our constitutional scheme and framework , all our treated equally and he is not an exception . No exclusive rights should be given to any individual . This is an age old trend to give awards and benefits to sportsperson after their achievements but this should necessarily be stopped . If Ganguly is really interested in promotion and betterment of cricket he should join the state sports establishment and help budding cricketers to sharpen their skills and enhance their performance .Ganguly requested to C.M of West Bengal for allotment of land for building school of international standards , the whole process is illegal , no record of his making application . Lease amount which is payable is reduced to half i.e 5.5 crores from Rs. 11 crores .
Counsel of Sourav Ganguly submitted that government will modify the allotment terms as required .
The Hon’ble court observed that Ganguly has used his position of power , he has an easy access to ‘corridors of power’ . While reading his request for allotment of land , court founded that no application for allotment of land is made but direct claim of land is showing his commercial interests.
Lastly court said orally that this type of arbitrary and whimsical actions will invite personal responsibility . The court dismissed the petition.