Calcutta High Court bench acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee on Monday has taken a rout on BCCI president Sourav Ganguly and imposed a token cost of Rs 10,000 on Board of Control for Cricket in India. Here is Why Sourav Ganguly And West Bengal Government Fined.
Why Sourav Ganguly And West Bengal Government Fined
They’ve also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 each on the West Bengal government and a state-owned corporation – WBHIDCO for irregular allotment of plot to the former Indian skipper to set up a school in the New Town area close to Kolkata.
The bench, in its order, said “we need not quash the allotment of the plot as the same stands already surrendered, however, for the conduct of the State in generating litigation by the arbitrary exercise of power which runs totally contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we impose a cost of Rs 50,000 each on State and WBHIDCO (West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation).”
Sourav Ganguly’s Welfare Society Got Fined for 10,000 INR
Later the high court bench also imposed a “token cost of 10,000” on BCCI President and the ‘Ganguly Education and Welfare Society’ “for the reason that even they should have acted in accordance with the law especially considering the earlier judgment whereby arbitrary allotment of plot in their favor was set aside by the Supreme Court.”
The bench later said that recovery of fine to be done by whosoever is irresponsible for the wrong allotment of the concerned plot.
The bench passed the order on a PIL questioning the out-of-turn allotment of two acres of land to Ganguly and the said society for setting up a school in New Town. The plot of land was surrendered to WBHIDCO in August 2020.
“The country always stands by the sportspersons, especially those who represent the country in international events. It is also a fact that Sourav Ganguly has brought laurels for the country in cricket. But when it comes to the law, our Constitutional Scheme is that all are equal and no one can claim to be exclusive, above the law and seek benefits from the State, especially when the question arises for allotment of plots for commercial ventures,” the bench observed.