Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 1460 of 2025 Bengal DCL Housing Development Company Limited & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rohit Mukherjee Ms. Somali Bhattacharya Ms. Megha Das For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Chayan Gupta Mr. Dyutimoy Paul Mr. Saquib Siddiqui Mr. Aviroop Mitra Heard on : 13.01.2026, 21.04.2026, 06.05.2026 20.07.2026 & 15.09.2026 Judgment on : 15.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to quash the letter dated 22nd September, 2015, whereby the respondents conveyed its decision to refund the consideration owed to the petitioner no.1 after deducting Rs.2,26,49,906/- 2. The petitioner no.1, is a joint sector company of West Bengal Housing Board, being the respondent no.3 herein and DC 2 WPA 1460 of 2025 Proprieties Private Limited, wherein each party holds 49.5% shares in the petitioner no.1. The respondent no.2 by its letter dated 1st December, 2010 addressed to the respondent no.3 offered the petitioner no.1 allocation of land measuring 3 acres at plot no.BG/3 in Sub-CBD area of Action Area-I at New Town, Kolkata. The total consideration sought for such allocation was Rs.21,96,15,000/-. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 had made initial payment of 25% of the consideration amount aggregating to Rs.5,49,03,750/- whereupon the respondent no.2 had allotted the said land in favour of the petitioner no.1. The petitioners’ case proceed on the premise despite payment of the initial 25% of the consideration as aforesaid, the respondent no.2 had been delaying the handing over of possession of the land to the petitioners and subsequently by a letter dated 10th August, 2013, cancelled the allotment of the said land. Since then, several disputes and difference had arisen by and between the parties and the matter was attempted to be negotiated in relation to the refund of the aforesaid sum. The petitioners ultimately received the letter dated 22nd September, 2015 issued by the respondent no.2 addressed to the pro-forma respondent, the respondent no.3. According to the petitioners in the said letter, the respondent no.2 therein specifically conveyed that while there was no impediment in refund of the amount of Rs.5,49,03,750/- which the petitioner had deposited with it, it would only do so after making adjustment of a 3 WPA 1460 of 2025 sum of Rs.2,26,49,906/- which was allegedly receivable by the respondent no.2 from the pro-forma respondent no.3. Challenging such decision, the petitioners had approached this Court. The matter was heard from time to time. In course of hearing before this Court, Mr. Gupta, learned advocate representing the respondent no.2 has submitted by placing a letter dated 28th April, 2026, issued by the General Manager (Commercial), WBHIDCO Ltd., that the issue with regard to the refund of the earnest money to the extent indicated therein, was under active consideration of the said respondent. 3. Today, Mr. Gupta, learned advocate representing the respondent no.2 has placed before this Court a communication dated 8th September, 2026 and would submit that a sum of Rs.2,26,49,906/- has already been remitted to the petitioner no.1, with details of the transaction ID. 4. Mr. Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners would acknowledge the fact that a sum of Rs. Rs.2,26,49,906/- has been received by the petitioners without prejudice to the petitioners’ claim for interest. He would insist that the petitioners should be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount which had been wrongly held back by the respondents. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate representing the respondent no.2, on the other hand, would submit that the contractual terms do not permit payment of any compensation in the event failure on the 4 WPA 1460 of 2025 part of the respondent no.2 to allot the land. In this context, he has placed reliance on clause/paragraph 11 of the letter dated 1st December, 2010. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, in my view since the deposit amount/earnest money has already been refunded in favour of the petitioners and since to decide on the claim for interest, this Court would be required to enter into the disputed questions of fact, which otherwise cannot be conveniently adjudicated by this Court, let the writ petition stand disposed of without any further order, leaving it open to the petitioners to agitate the claim of interest before appropriate forum, if so advised. 7. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of the period spent before this Court pursuing the instant writ petition, provided the proceeding is initiated within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)