M/S Fish Agency and Ors. Vs the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Fish Agency and Ors. Vs the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. MAT 1373 of 2025 dismissed; the connected pending application (CAN 1 of 2025) dismissed; WPA 22380 of 2018 also dismissed; parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants had a vested right to allotment of shop room(s) in the new Howrah Fish Market Complex so as to stall the KMDA's public auction for leasing out 25 shop rooms. +2 more

Court's answer

The 26.09.1997 order of the Coordinate Bench in C.O. 20737(w) of 1996 only directed the HIT to consider the case of allotment of one shop room to one permit holder; there were no binding directions to make such allotment and no reasons appear to have been assigned for that order.

Ratio / Principle

The appellants failed to demonstrate any vested right to be allotted any shop room or to interfere with the auction process for grant of lease of the 25 shop rooms.

Key takeaways

No such right exists in the petitioners, who are at best permit holders to sell fish, and the four petitioners already have a shop room in the new complex.ratio¶18
The legitimate expectation argument is rejected: the doctrine stands substantially watered down since the Supreme Court's decision in F.C.I. Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed; unless such expectation matures into promissory estoppel, permitting it to persist would cause serious prejudice to State distribution of largess.ratio¶20
The impugned Single Bench order calls for no interference whatsoever; the writ petition may have become infructuous since denial of interim relief formed its core, nothing further survives in it, and WPA 22380 of 2018 stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (MAT No. 1373 of 2025) against Single Bench order dated 19.08.2025 refusing to stall the KMDA's public auction for leasing out 25 shop rooms in the new Howrah Fish Market Complex. Held: the four appellants, permit-holding occupiers of stall no. 141 since 1983, had no vested right to allotment of shop rooms; the Division Bench order of 26.09.1997 in C.O. 20737(w) of 1996 carried no binding directions, requiring the HIT only to consider allotment; the legitimate expectation plea fails, the doctrine having been substantially watered down after F.C.I. v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed, (1993) 1 SCC 71, absent maturity into promissory estoppel. Impugned order not interfered with; appeal, connected application, and WPA 22380 of 2018 dismissed. Coram: Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.; decision dated 12-09-2025.

12-09-2025 ct no. 13 Sl. 4

pk

MAT No. 1373 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025

-Versus-

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mrs. Ishita Kundu … for the appellants.

Mr. Satyajit Talukder, Mr. Arindam Chatterjee … for the KMDA

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

The instant appeal is directed against an order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. The appellants claim to be the original occupiers and permit holders to run retail outlets at the Howrah Fish Market. At the relevant point of time, the market was under the Howrah Improvement Trust (HIT).

Four appellants sometime in 1983 were allotted one stall being no. 141 and possession was taken by them. They occupied the stall until 2018 and still continue to do so. The HIT came to be taken over by the KMDA sometime in 2012.

2

The KMDA had decided to shift the said Howrah Fish Market to a new location pursuant to orders passed by the Green Bench of the High Court at Calcutta.

About 25 shop rooms in the new fish market complex were proposed to be auctioned by the KMDA. The appellants launched themselves immediately and filed WPA 22380 of 2018, inter alia, claiming firstly the allotment shop rooms in the new fish market could not have been done by the public auction since there was a vested right in the petitioners to one shop room each against each of their permits for selling fish that four petitioners were enjoying. They based such claim on an order dated 26^th September, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C. O. 20737(w) of 1996. It appears to this Court that in the said order the Coordinate Bench has only directed the HIT to consider the case of allotment of one shop room to one permit holder. There were no binding directions on the HIT to make such allotment. No reasons appear to have been assigned the said Bench to pass the orders-in-question.

Having regard to the above, the Single Bench by the impugned order declined a prayer of the appellants to stall the public auction being conducted by the KMDA for leasing out 25 shop

3

rooms in the market complex in the new Howrah Fish Market Complex.

This Court is of the view that the petitioners/appellants have not been able to demonstrate any vested right to be allotted any shop room or for interfere with an auction process for grant of lease to 25 shop rooms.

In fact, no such right exists in the petitioners, who are at best permit holders to sell fish. The four petitioners are already having a shop room in the new complex.

It is curious to note that an interlocutory application is made for the first time in 2025 after the writ petition was filed in the year 2018.

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants under the principle of legitimate expectation is not acceptable to this Court. Doctrine has been substantially watered down since after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of F.C.I. Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed reported in (1993) 1 SCC page 71 . It was held that unless such expectation can mature into promissory estoppels, permitting such legitimate expectation to persist would cause serious prejudice to the State Distribution of the largess.

For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order calls for no interference whatsoever.

4

The writ petition may also have become infructuous since interim relief denied to the writ petitioners formed the core of the writ petition. Nothing further survives in the said writ petition. WPA 22380 of 2018 shall stand dismissed.

MAT 1373 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently connected pending application is also dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)