Form J(2)

In The High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Coram: The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj

&

The Hon’ble Justice Sudip Deb

WPA 27005 of 2016

With

CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 4506 of 2019) ,(CAN 4 of 2021), (CAN 5 of 2022),(CAN 6 of

2022), (CAN 7 of 2023), (CAN 8 of 2024), (CAN 9 of 2024),(CAN 10 of 2024), (CAN 11 of

2024), (CAN 12 of 2024), (CAN 14 of 2024), (CAN 15 of 2024), (CAN 16 of 2024),(CAN 17

of 2024), (CAN 18 of 2025), (CAN 19 of 2025),(CAN 20 of 2025), (CAN 21 of 2025), (CAN

22 of 2025), (CAN 23 of 2025), (CAN 25 of 2025), (CAN 29 of 2025)(CAN 30 of 2025), (CAN

31 of 2025), (CAN 33 of 2025),(CAN 35 of 2025), (CAN 38 of 2025), (CAN 41 of 2026),(CAN

42 of 2026), (CAN 43 of 2026), (CAN 46 of 2026)(CAN 47 of 2026), (CAN 48 of 2026),

(CAN 49 of 2026), (CAN 53 of 2026)

Kalipada Pal

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

Original Side matters:

WP 275 of 2015

With

GA 896 of 2017, GA 315 of 2016 GA 2291 of 2015, GA 3765 of 2015 GA 4015 of 2015,

With

APOT 287 of 2015

With

GA 2255 of 2015, GA 2256 of 2015,GA 1552 of 2018, GA 5 of 2022, GA 7 of 2023, GA 8

of 2024, GA 9 of 2024, GA 10 of 2025

With

WPA 17346 of 2024

With

CAN 1 of 2025

[- 2 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

With

WPA 20812 of 2023

Samir Kumar Hazra & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 20822 of 2023

Suvash Maji & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 20947 of 2023

Lipika Chanda

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 24932 of 2023

Asit Pramanik & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 25845 of 2016

CAN 1 of 2018 (Old CAN 4643 of 2018)

Rose Valley Fields Employees Union

(WB Circle) & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 3268 of 2016

Sarmistha Singha & Anr.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

[- 3 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

With

WPA 6975 of 2024

Utpal Chanda

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

With

WPA 7837 of 2022

Chitra Malik & Ors.

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Present :-

Mr. Subhasis Chakraborty

Ms. Sushmita Kumari Singh

… … for petitioner in WPA 27005 of 2016

Mr. Amaredra Chakaraborty

…for the petitioner in WPA 3268 of 2016

Mr. Swatarup Banerjee ….As Amicus Curie in WPA 17346 of 2024

Mr. Debapriya Majumder …..for petitioner in WPA 17346 of 2024

Mr. Annirudha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee

Mr. Sidharta Basu

… … for the respondent no.11 in WPA 17346 of 2024

Mr. Arup Nath Bhattacharyya

Ms. Sreetama Biswas

Mr. Zainab Kamal … … for Rose Valley Group of Companies

Mr. R. Bachawat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anirban Kar

Mr. Suvadeep Sen

Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi … … for the ADC

Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASGI

Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. ASGI

Mr. Samrat Goshwami

Ms. A. Pandey

Mr. Arijit Chakraborti

Mr. Debsoumya Basak

Ms. Swati Kumari Singh

Ms. Supriti Sarkhel

Ms. Swapna Jha

Ms. Katha Sarkar

… … for the ED

[- 4 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.

Ms. A. Pandey

Ms. A. Mishra

Mr. A. Kanan

Ms. A. Agarwal

Ms. G. Parth

… … for the SFIO & UOI

Mr. Susanta Kumar Dutt

Mr. Syamantak Banerjee

... ... for the SEBI

Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Ld. AAG

Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP

Mr. G.K. Sarkar

… … for the State

Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. ASGI

Mr. Amajit De … for the CBI

Ms. Suchismita Ghosh … … for the RBI

Reserved on : 28.09.2026

Pronounced on : 29.09.2026

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J : -

1. The petitioner in WPA 17346 of 2024, M/s Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd., is a

private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies

Act, 2013, engaged primarily in the business of operating hotels and

restaurants.

2. The history of the subject property i.e., the commercial establishment

known as "Park Prime Hotel" situated at Durgapur, Paschim Bardhaman is

inextricably linked with the judicial management of the assets of respondent

no.7 herein M/s Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Limited. By an order

dated May 11, 2015, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 275 of 2015

(Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Limited v. State of West Bengal and

[- 5 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Others), an Assets Disposal Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADC’) was

constituted primarily for conducting the sale of the assets of Rose Valley Real

Estate & Construction Limited by public auction, subject to the explicit rider

that no disbursement of the proceeds would be made without the prior leave of

the High Court.

3. With a view to generating revenue from dormant assets under the

purview of the learned ADC, the proposal of Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd. to lease out

Park Prime Hotel at Durgapur was placed before the ADC. In its 50

th

sitting

held on January 6, 2021, the learned ADC examined the credentials of Mahijas

Infra Pvt. Ltd. and resolved that its credentials were acceptable given its

demonstrated capability in running hotel businesses. In the course of those

deliberations, Mr. Tuhin Dey being the Director of respondent no.11, i.e., M/s

Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. suggested that the operation of the hotel be

entrusted to Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd., which had quoted an occupational charge

of Rs.3.35/- Lakhs per month, a figure accepted by the Committee a s

commercially viable.

4. Subsequently, following various discussions, the learned ADC, in its

61

st

sitting held on August 24, 2021, formally permitted M/s Chocolate Hotels

Pvt. Ltd. to execute a Management Contract Agreement for four corporate

properties including Park Prime Hotel at Durgapur with Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd.

as the designated service provider, on mutually agreed terms and conditions.

5. Pursuant to the explicit authorisation of the learned ADC, a formal

Management Agreement was executed on September 13, 2021, by and between

[- 6 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

the respondent no.11 being M/s Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (designated as

Lessee/Licensee) and the petitioner being Mahijas Infra Pvt. Ltd. (designated as

Service Provider). Under the terms of this agreement, the petitioner was

authorised and permitted to manage and operate Park Prime Hotel at Durgapur

for an initial period of one year, commencing on October 1, 2021 and expiring

on September 30, 2022, with a covenant providing for annual renewal subject

to a 10% enhancement of the monthly occupational charges.

6. However, when the petitioner attempted to assume physical possession

of Park Prime Hotel in October 2021, it encountered severe operational hurdles.

The hotel had remained non -operational and shut for years, resulting in

massive unpaid salary and Provident Fund (PF) backlogs owed to the

employees and staff of respondent no.11. Consequently, the organised labour

force and staff physically blocked entry into the hotel premises, refusing to

allow the petitioner to assume control or commence operations until their long-

pending salary and PF dues were completely discharged.

7. Facing complete operational paralysis, the Directors of the petitioner

immediately notified the management of respondent no.11. In response, the

Director of respondent no.11 instructed the petitioner to directly intervene and

settle the industrial dispute, with an express assurance that all funds

advanced by the petitioner to clear labour liabilities would be adjusted month-

by-month against the occupational charges payable for the hotel.

8. To resolve the impasse, the petitioner initiated formal conciliation by

issuing a representation to the Joint Labour Commissioner (P), Durgapur, on

[- 7 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

January 11, 2022. Acting upon this representation, the Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Durgapur, issued a notice vide Memo No. DLC/DGP/IR -2022

dated February 17, 2022, requesting the attendance of the petitioner at a joint

conciliation conference on February 23, 2022, to resolve the industrial dispute.

9. Through these conciliation efforts, the outstanding labour liability of

respondent no.11 was settled at Rs.34,26,521/-.On March 4, 2022, Mr. Tuhin

Dey, Director of the respondent no.11, issued a letter requesting the petitioner

to remit the sum of Rs.34,26,521/- directly into the respondent no.11’s HDFC

Bank Account (Account No.502001534802,Tollygunge Branch), so that

cheques could be disbursed to workers in the presence of the Deputy Labour

Commissioner at Durgapur. The petitioner duly remitted the entire sum of

Rs.34,26,521/- into the designated bank account. In addition, the petitioners

also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- directly to a private security provider agency

to secure the hotel premises.

10. Following the resolution of the labour dispute, when the Directors of the

petitioner were finally permitted to inspect the hotel infrastructure, they

discovered that prolonged closure and neglect during the COVID-19 pandemic

had left the property in total disrepair. Crucially, the high-tension electrical

supply to the property had been permanently disconnected by the West Bengal

State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) due to years of

unpaid utility bills. The petitioner submitted fresh applications for electricity

connection and remitted Rs.13,57,444/- (also recorded as Rs.13,57,488/-)

directly to WBSEDCL to secure power restoration.

[- 8 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

11. Beyond utility disconnections, the petitioner was compelled to clear

severe statutory local tax liabilities, including the payment of Rs.2,00,000/-

towards municipal holding tax backlogs to the Durgapur Municipal

Corporation (against total pending arrears of approximately Rs. 14 Lakhs),

Rs.26,100/- towards municipal water taxes and Rs. 46,465 towards fire

licensing fees.

12. To render the damaged hotel operational, the petitioner undertoo k

extensive capital repairs and equipment overhauls, incurring the following

items of expenditure, such as, Lift Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) of

Rs.18,462/-, Diesel Generator (DG) set overhauls and repairs of Rs.56,238/-,

Electronic room lock repairs of Rs.1,55,760/-, Miscellaneous conciliation

expenses before the DLC of Rs.50,000/-, Building exterior painting of

Rs.2,12,842/-, Interior room and indoor area painting of Rs.5,51,080/-,

Comprehensive plumbing system repair s of Rs.1,45,376/-, Interior work,

furniture and fixture refurbishing of Rs.6,69,930/-, Kitchen ducting and

exhaust system repairs of Rs. 31,886, Gas line and commercial cooking range

repairs of Rs.28,700/-, Central Air Conditioning (AC) and deep freezer

overhauls of Rs.1,17,611/-, Water pressure pump system repairs of

Rs.12,709/-, Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) repairs of Rs. 8,050/-, Aqua Guard

water cooler repairs of Rs.12,555/-, Replacement and installation of CCTV

cameras and DVR systems of Rs.72,100/-, Kitchen drainage lines and Tandoor

unit repairs of Rs.16,000/-, Commercial Wi-Fi network installation of

[- 9 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Rs.11,800/- and Installation of a hot water boiler system with accessories

(estimated) of Rs.16,00,000/-.

13. The total advance capital outlay disbursed by the petitioner to clear

labour claims, statutory municipal liabilities, utility arrears and structural

overhauls on behalf of respondent no.11 amounted to Rs.93,27,973 /-. Under

the agreed financial arrangement, this advance outlay was to be systematically

recovered by the petitioner through a monthly deduction of Rs.2,00,000/- from

the occupational charges, extending through May 31, 2026. A draft

Supplementary Agreement dated August 12, 2022, detailing this exact

adjustment schedule, was prepared by respondent no.11 and transmitted via

email to the petitioner for vetting.

14. Following these capital overhauls, Park Prime Hotel became fully

operational in July 2022. During an online meeting held on February 2, 2023,

the learned ADC explicitly noted and reaffirmed the management contract

granting operational control of Park Prime Hotel, Durgapur, to the petitioner.

15. The petitioner operated the hotel continuously, submitting applications

for formal contract renewal. Inasmuch as the respondent no.11 and the

authorities accepted the contractually enhanced occupational charges

(reflecting the mandatory 10% annual escalation) following the completion of

the first operational year, the management arrangement was treated as deemed

renewed. The petitioner maintained an uninterrupted record of paying monthly

occupational charges through June 2024, including payments remitted as late

as June 12, 2024.

[- 10 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

16. Notwithstanding full financial compliance and the ongoing operation of

the hotel, summary eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in

late June 2024. The Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) D.K. Seth, Chairman of the ADC,

issued a letter dated June 19, 2024addressed to the District Magistrate

(Paschim Bardhaman), the Commissioner of Police (ADPC) and Sri Suresh

Kumar, Joint Director of the Enforcement Directorate (Zone II), stating that

respondent no.11 would retake physical possession of Park Prime Hotel on

June 23, 2024. A copy of this directive was communicated to the petitioner

only on June 25, 2024.

17. On the evening of Saturday, June 22, 2024, Mr. Tuhin Dey, Director of

respondent no.11, issued an email notice alleging violations of Clauses 7 and 8

of the management agreement and demanding that the petitioner will hand

over vacant physical possession of the hotel by the morning of June 23, 2024,

providing less than 15 hours’ notice.

18. At approximately 11:00 AM on June 23, 2024, Mr. Tuhin Dey,

accompanied by individuals who identified themselves as officers of the

Enforcement Directorate, arrived at the hotel premises. They took forcible

physical possession of Park Prime Hotel in the absence of the Directors of the

petitioner and locked the main executive offices. Locked inside the premises

were valuable corporate records, financial books, signed cheques and liquid

cash belonging to the petitioner.

19. On June 23, 2024, learned Counsel for the petitioner dispatched an

email reply denying all allegations of default, pointing out that occupational

[- 11 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

charges stood paid up to June 2024 and requesting immediate recall of the

eviction notice. Furthermore, on June 27, 2024, the petitioner submitted a

comprehensive representation to the learned ADC protesting the high-handed

dispossession and seeking restoration of physical possession.

20. Failing to receive administrative redress, the petitioner instituted the

present petition being WPA 17346 of 2024 before this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside and quashing the directive

of the learned ADC dated June 19, 2024 and the notice dated June 22, 2024

and directing the respondents to immediately restore physical possession of

Park Prime Hotel, Durgapur, to the petitioner and to pay compensation to the

tune of Rs.1,50,000/-per day from June 23, 2024, until the date of actual

restoration of possession, on account of illegal dispossession and operational

losses.

21. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.11 submits that

M/s Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘CHPL’), is a wholly

owned subsidiary of the Rose Valley Group. By orders of this Hon'ble Court

dated May 11, 2015 and December 14, 2017, the Rose Valle y ADC was

constituted to manage and monetize properties across 54 group entities to

refund victimised depositors. The subject property, Park Prime Hotel,

Durgapur, belongs to M/s Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Limited and

stands attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Under an agreement dated July 1, 2014

and subsequent resolutions in the 50

th

, 61

st

and 91

st

sittings of the ADC, CHPL

[- 12 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

was authorised to operate group hotels under ADC supe rvision and remit

profits to the ED. Pursuant thereto, CHPL executed a Management Contract

dated September 13, 2021, appointing the petitioner herein M/s Mahijas Infra

Pvt. Ltd. solely as a "service provider" for sales and operation consultancy for a

fixed term from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022. It is submitted that

this agreement created no leasehold, tenancy or possessory rights in favor of

the petitioner, with constructive possession remaining throughout with CHPL.

Upon expiry on September 30, 2022, the contract was never renewed.

22. Learned counsel further conte nds that the writ petition is not

maintainable against respondent no.11, as CHPL is a private limited company

and not an "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The

dispute arises entirely from a private, determinable commercial contract that

has expired and stands lawfully rescinded. Specific performance or restoration

of possession under a determinable commercial agreement is squarely barred

under Sections 12 and 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and provisions of

the Indian Contract Act, 1872, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies before

a civil or commercial court. Furthermore, because the property is under PMLA

attachment, all claims regarding attached assets fall under the exclusive

jurisdiction of the Special PMLA Court under Section 8(8) of the PMLA, 2002.

Additionally, the prayer for unliquidated damages of Rs.1,50,000/- per day

cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

23. On the merits, learned counsel submits that the petitioner committed

persistent, material breaches of the contract. The petitioner unlawfully sub-let

[- 13 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

the hotel by executing an agreement on March 11, 2022, with WOW Hospitality

Services and entered into a Business Operation Management Contr act on

October 20, 2023 with Surabhi Management for the entire hotel. It also

constructed an unauthorised two-storied structure with a kitchen to run a

restaurant named 'Eatsin' without the respondent no.11's permission or valid

statutory licenses. Most egregiously, on June 10, 2023, illegal and immoral

activities occurred inside the hotel, resulting in a police raid and registration of

Durgapur P.S. Case No. 271 of 2023 under Sections 370/ 371/ 354A/ 354B/

120B/341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sectio n 46A(C) Bengal Excise

Act, 1909 wherein both directors of the petitioner were arrested. This scandal

severely tarnished the goodwill of Park Prime Hotel. Moreover, the petitioner

operated without a Fire License, allowed fire safety and kitchen ventilation

systems to collapse, left vendor liabilities of Rs. 30 to 35 Lakhs unpaid,

defaulted on PF/ESI dues, accumulated occupational charge arrears of

Rs.5,72,800/- and failed to furnish TDS certificates (Form 16A) for

Rs. 8,56,000/-.

24. Consequently, following the administrative directive dated June 18,

2024, issued by the Hon'ble Chairman of the ADC, respondent no.11 issued a

termination notice dated June 22, 2024 under Clause 5 and lawfully resumed

physical management on Jun e 23, 2024. Rebutting the petitioner's financial

claims, learned Counsel submits that all legitimate outlays for staff salaries

amounting to Rs.34,26,521/-, security amounting to Rs.5,00,000 /- and

municipal taxes amounting to Rs.2,00,000 /- were fully adjusted against

[- 14 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

occupational charges, while no supplementary agreement for adjusting

Rs.93,27,973/- was ever executed. While the petitioner obtained electricity in

its own name amounting to Rs.13,57,488 /- and can seek refund from

WBSEDCL, respondent no.11 paid Rs.9,14,334/- to WBSEDCL for electricity

consumed during the petitioner's tenure, making respondent no.11 entitled to

recover Rs.10,86,867/-. The respondent no.11 has remitted Rs.43,60,000/- to

the ED up to June 2024. Finally, learned Counsel highlights that despite a

status quo order dated August 9, 2024, the petitioner's director, one Ms. Mita

Mahato and her associates repeatedly trespassed into the hotel on October 31,

2024, November 6, 2024 and May 11, 2026, assaulting staff, destroyi ng

CCTV/DVR systems and harassing female staff, leading to FIRs being

registered with Durgapur P.S. Case Nos. 591/2024 & 242/2026 under BNS.

The respondent no.11 therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition with

exemplary costs.

25. In order to fully comprehend the legal matrix within which the Learned

ADC functions, it is necessary to examine the foundational Public Interest

Litigation registered as WPA 27005 of 2016 (KaliPada Pal & Anr. v. Union of

India & Ors.).

26. The Learned Counsel submits that the petitioners in WPA 27005 of 2016

are, one Kalipada Pal being the petitioner no. 1, who invested a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- and petitioner no. 2 being one Shephali Das who invested a

sum of Rs.88,120/-. Both petitioners instituted the writ petition in their dual

capacity as defrauded depositors and members of the All India Small

[- 15 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Depositors and Field Workers Committee also known as Amanatkari -O- Agent

Surokha Mancha, having its registered office at 53, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-

700016, representing and acting in coordination with affected depositors

across the nation including the All India Rose Valley Sufferers Association

(AIRVSA).

27. The writ petition in WPA 27005 of 2016 was brought in the public

interest to protect the life savings of millions of small depositors across West

Bengal and neighbouring states who suffered complete economic ruination due

to illegal Ponzi and Collective Investment Schemes operated by respondent

no.18, M/s Rose Valley Group of Companies comprising of 54 companies and

its common directors operating under diverse corporate aliases.

28. As set forth in WPA 27005 of 2016, respondent no.18 and its ancillary

entities operated in total defiance of corporate and financial laws. They solicited

public deposits by offering deceptive assurances of exorbitant interest returns

to innocent investors and lucrative commissions to field agents. These activities

directly violated the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, as well as statutory

directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Chapter IIIA and

Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, regulating deposit

acceptance, interest caps and agent remuneration. As per official investigations

submitted by the Enforcement Directorate, respondent no.18 fraudulently

mobilised deposits amounting to Rs.17,520 Crores from over 1 Crore

predominantly poor and middle-class investors, out of which Rs.6,666 Crores

constitutes verified proceeds of crime.

[- 16 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

29. To evade statutory oversight, the modus operandi of respondent no.18

was to project its operations as legitimate commercial businesses by

purportedly selling land, tour and travel packages, solar products and

consumer goods as well as operating hotel networks like Chocolate Hotels

Private Limited which were in reality deceptive fronts designed to gather public

funds under the guise of product sales. Posing as authorised Non -Banking

Financial Companies (NBFCs) despite clear warnings from regulatory

preliminary committees as early as 1996–1997, respondent no.18 siphoned off

public money, severely undermining financial inclusion and destroying the

rural economy.

30. Following the sudden financial collapse of the Saradha Group of

Companies in January–February 2013, a systemic crisis enveloped similar

Ponzi operators. Respondent no.18 and its group companies defaulted on their

obligations, failing to pay promised returns or even refund principal sums. The

total accumulated financial liability of respondent no.18 and its group entities

was estimated to exceed Rs.6,000 crore, subsequent ED investigative findings

confirmed a collection scale of Rs.17,520 crore with thousands of crores in

unreturned principal. Respondent no.18 abruptly closed its branch offices,

placed its premises under lock and key and absconded with public funds.

Furthermore, local police stations under respondent nos. 14 to 17 repeatedly

refused or neglected to register First Information Reports against the

management of respondent no.18.

[- 17 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

31. In WPA 27005 of 2016, the petitioners detailed widespread regulatory

failure and statutory dereliction of duty across central and state authorities,

such as, the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘RBI’) failed to

enforce NBFC guidelines and regulator controls despite statutory powers under

Chapter IIIA and IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934. The Registrar of Companies herein

respondent no.10 failed to exercise statutory vigilance under the Companies

Act, 1956, allowing respondent no.18 and its group companies to illegally raise

public funds. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred

to as ‘SEBI’) being the respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein failed to act under its

notification dated August 25, 2014 and amended provisions of the SEBI Act,

1992, specifically Section 11AA under which fund pooling involving a corpus of

Rs.100 crore or more is deemed a Collective Investment Scheme, Section 11B

that allows disgorgement of illegal gains and Section 28A(1) which empowers

attachment and sale of movable/immovable properties, bank accounts, arrest

of defaulting officers and appointment of receivers. The SEBI was subsequently

assigned by the High Court to supervise property e-auctions and set reserve

prices based on valuer reports. The Enforcement Directorate being the

respondent nos. 8 and 9 herein neglected to invoke statutory mechanisms

under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for the

attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and the prosecution of money

laundering offenses. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under the

Ministry of Corporate Affairs being respondent nos. 11 and 12 herein failed to

exercise explicit powers under the Companies Act, 2013, including Section 211

[- 18 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

(multidisciplinary investigation), Section 212 (investigation by Investigating

Officers), Section 217 (inspection powers), Section 220 (search and seizure of

falsified, altered or secreted books and records), Section 221 (freezing asset

transfers prejudicial to the company or public interest under penal

imprisonment up to 3 years and fines), submitting police reports under CrPC

and executing arrests for corporate fraud. The Central Bureau of Investigation

(hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’) being respondent nos. 6 and 7 herein failed to

investigate the larger conspiracy angle despite binding directives issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India

reported in (2014) 8 SCC 768. The State Government of West Bengal being

respondent nos. 13 to 17 herein failed to attach the Rose Valley properties, file

FIRs or cooperate effectively with central agencies.

32. The petitioners in WPA 27005 of 2016 also submitted that despite

providing detailed administrative representations following liberty granted by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an Article 32 petition (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 307

of 2014), statutory authorities took no effective action. Owing to preferring the

present petition(WPA 27005 of 2016) wherein the petitioner prays for a

direction upon the concerned authorities to value all movable and immovable

assets and liabilities of respondent no.18, its group companies and the

personal properties of its directors using a High Court-approved registered

valuer, the public auction sale of all attached properties and the appointment

of a court-monitored special officer to disburse sale proceeds to defrauded

[- 19 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

depositors and directing regulatory authorities to conduct a comprehensive

investigation into the larger conspiracy angle across all jurisdictions.

33. In order to address such catastrophic public crisis and establish an

effective mechanism for the liquidation of corporate properties for depositor

restitution, the judicial framework governing the assets of respondent no.18

evolved through a series of court orders being as follows:

34. First, in Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Limited v. State of West

Bengal & Ors. (W.P. No. 275 of 2015), this Hon'ble High Court formulated a

comprehensive asset liquidation scheme for depositor’s restitution and by an

order dated May 11, 2015, initially constituted an Asset Disposal Committee

chaired by Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Dilip Kumar Seth, with the explicit rider that

the role of assets will be subject to confirmation by this Court.

35. In respect of M.A.T. No. 559 of 2015 in a Public Interest Litigation

regarding the MPS group of companies, the formation of the S.P. Talukdar One-

Man Committee was directed. Thereafter, the One-Man Committee’s framework

continued operating with its administrative expenditure borne by the State of

West Bengal like a government department, currently managing 101 chit fund

companies apart from the Rose Valley Group. The Enforcement Directorate

challenged the constitutional validity of the initial One-Man Committee before

this High Court in A.P.O.T. No. 287 of 2015. However, the High Court's

jurisdiction to establish asset disposal frameworks for defrauded investors was

firmly re-established by a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice

Manjula Chellur and Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi. By a judgment dated

[- 20 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

December 23, 2015, in M.A.T. No. 512 of 2015 and M.A.T. No. 559 of 2015

(involving the MPS Group of Companies), the Division Bench constituted a

parallel One-Man Committee chaired by Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Sailendra

Prasad Talukdar with the specific mandate of liquidating corporate properties

for depositor refunds, reinforcing the broader judicial framework operating

concurrently alongside the Rose Valley proceedings.

36. The legal authority of these High Court -appointed asset disposal

mechanisms was conclusively affirmed when the Enforcement Directorate

challenged them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) Nos.

33163–33164 of 2016. By an order dated October 28, 2016, the Supreme Court

dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, holding that High Court -appointed

committees were fully entitled to operate and sell corporate assets for depositor

refunds while central statutory criminal and money-laundering investigations

proceeded concurrently.

37. In line with the evolution of this judicial mechanism, the High Court

subsequently reconstituted the said three-members of the Asset Disposal

Committee (ADC) comprising of the Chairman, a Senior State Official (not

below the rank of Joint Secretary) to be nominated by the Chief Secretary and

an Enforcement Directorate officer ( not below the rank of an Assistant

Director) to be nominated by the Director of the Enforcement Directorate ,

supported by SEBI and the IG Registration, Government of West Bengal vide

orders dated September 14, 2017 and September 21, 2023 that would work in

the line of the One-Man Committee.

[- 21 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

38. This exclusive judicial authority was further fortified by this Hon’ble

Court's judgment dated August 18, 2026, in WPA 27005 of 2016 (CAN 28 of

2025), which confirmed Court-monitored e-auctions (such as Orbit Hotel,

Raghunathpur for Rs.6,37,76,000/-) and explicitly rejected respondent no. 18's

objections under Article 300A and Sections 5/8 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

39. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the CBI has

filed a report in a sealed cover. The report reveals that Gautam Kundu and his

family, being the masterminds behind the matter, diverted the proceeds of

crime during the period from 2017 to 2023. It further discloses that, despite

the assets remaining under the control of the Asset Disposal Committee (ADC),

they obstructed the ADC from discharging its duties effectively.

40. Therefore, amidst widespread regulatory oversight failures across central

and state authorities, judicial intervention became imperative to preserve the

corporate and personal assets of defaulting management in the public interest.

The Supreme Court-affirmed mandate of these Asset Disposal Co mmittees

ensures the transparent valuation, attachment and public auctioning of

corporate properties. However, as highlighted in the order dated August 08,

2025, strict judicial monitoring remains critical as despite an available corpus

of Rs. 536.94 crore, merely Rs. 55.45 crore which is less than 10% of the total

corpus has been disbursed to 72,760 depositors out of over 1 crore claimants,

leaving Rs. 483.68 crore undistributed alongside severe claim scrutiny

backlogs (Rs.31,000/- per month on the WEBEL p ortal) and administrative

[- 22 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

irregularities involving Chocolate Hotels directors. Consequently, the

petitioners submit that strict compliance with judicial directives and prompt

CBI scrutiny are essential to safeguard the public interest and ensure actual,

timely restitution.

41. Learned Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) submits

its report and contends that pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon’ble

High Court dated May 11, 2015 and December 14, 2017, the ADC headed by

Retd. Justice Dilip Kumar Seth was entrusted with the care, custody and

management of all properties and assets belonging to the Rose Valley Group of

companies, with exclusive powers to monetize and sell ED-attached properties

for depositor restitution. Out of fifty-four companies belonging to the Rose

Valley Group placed before this Hon’ble Court in W.P. 27005 of 2015, the

Enforcement Directorate attached the equity shares of thirty -two primary

entities directly held by the principal accused persons and promoters,

including Rose Valley Real Estate & Construction Ltd. (RVRECL), Rose Valley

Hotels & Entertainments Ltd. (RVHEL), Real Estates and Landbank India Ltd.

(RELI) and Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (CHPL), which were floated to layer, divert

and wash public deposits under cross-holding corporate networks.

42. The learned Counsel highlights that five major Rose Valley Group entities

illegally collected public deposits under various fraudulent Ponzi schemes,

accumulating an aggregate collection of Rs.17,520.91 crore across 2,20,09,927

investor certificates comprising Rs.10,830.71 crore across 1,25,00,428

certificates by RVHEL, Rs.6,185.20 crore across 89,28,716 certificates by

[- 23 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

RVRECL, Rs.430.12 crore across 4,97,048 certificates by RELI, Rs.69.59 crore

across 76,386 certificates by Rose Valley Industries Ltd. and Rs.5.27 crore

across 7,349 certificates by Rose Valley Realcon Ltd. Out of this sum,

approximately Rs.10,854 crore was disbursed to investors as principal and

interest including Rs.2,430 crore disbursed specifically as interest from

principal capital during the operation of the schemes across 93,64,032 paid

certificates, leaving an unpaid balance of Rs.6,666 crore across 1,26,45,895

unpaid certificates which stood siphoned off and constitutes active proceeds of

crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In order to secure

these proceeds of crime, the ED attached 709 immovable properties across 16

entities through its Kolkata Zonal Office, along with 141 properties through

Guwahati and 15 properties through Agartala Zonal Offices, totalling 865

immovable properties across zones. In total, provisional attachment orders

issued by the Kolkata Office cover movable assets valued at Rs.410.30 crore

including share value of Rs. 262.66 crore and immov able assets valued at

Rs.1,025.28 crore totalling Rs.1,435.58 crore across 14 PAO/Seizure orders,

alongside substantial movable attachments by the Bhubaneshwar office

amounting to Rs.332,76,57,735 /- across 2,987 properties/accounts and

Guwahati office amounting to Rs.2,12,15,684/- across 02 properties. Keeping

in light the recent SFIO findings regarding 242 allegedly unattached assets, the

ED submits that 82 of those properties already stand attached, 24 numbers

attributed to Gautam Kundu and others involve mistaken identity, while others

involve composite attachments where hotels were constructed over multiple

[- 24 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

merged land parcels. Furthermore, through auctioning 10 immovable

properties via SEBI (realising Rs.70,33,95,610/-) and 04 cars via MST C

(realizing Rs.24,17,346/-) evaluated by Court-appointed Valuers Mr. Chandan

Ghosh and Mr. Somnath Pal, the ADC accumulated Rs.70,58,12,959.21 /- in

realised funds and has successfully disbursed victimised depositors across 16

phases till date, with 97 additional properties currently in the pipeline for

auction.

43. It is further submitted that in respect of productive assets such as hotel

properties owned by CHPL herein respondent no.11 (a subsidiary under

RVHEL), the Directorate took constructive possession under Section 5(6) of the

PMLA (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the

Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, allowing the establishment to continue

commercial operations to prevent physical decay, local encroachment and

devaluation pursuant to the 45

th

sitting of the ADC dated August 19, 2019.

Under the administrative supervision of the ADC post-December 2017, CHPL

successfully turned around its business operations, transitioning from a

heavily indebted, loss-making entity into a profitable enterprise by FY 2020–21.

Out of its operational profits, CHPL cleared substantial staff salary arrears,

settled statutory liabilities, remitted Rs.5,31,61,371/- directly to the ED's

designated account out of total ED deposits of Rs.5,79,49,832/-, transferred

Rs.3,54,00,000/- directly to the ADC for administrative expenses and

Chairman remuneration from August 2023 to June 2026 and directly met

ADC’s running expenses, office infrastructure, web portal, SDMS facility and

[- 25 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

staff salaries to the extent of Rs.8,29,87,355/- up to August 21, 2026 totalling

Rs.11,83,87,355 paid/borne for ADC and an aggregate of Rs.17,63,37,187 /-

contributed overall. Following repossession of Park Prime Durgapur by CHPL

on June 23, 2024, the property generated operatio nal revenue of

Rs.2,97,95,726.23/- with a net profit of Rs.54,69,276.57/- in FY 2024–25 and

revenue of Rs.4,08,31,962.54/- with a net profit of Rs.67,51,384.11/- in FY

2025–26. Additionally, pursuant to directions from the Special PMLA Court,

the ED transferred Rs.517.54 crore including accrued interest to the ADC in

April 2025 for disbursement among victimised depositors.

44. Regarding the management of CHPL, the learned Counsel submits that

one Mr. Tuhin Dey was duly authorised by the promoters as Director of CHPL

on June 2, 2020 and actively resisted attempts by the erstwhile management to

siphon company funds. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide letter

dated November 11, 2021, advised that one Mr. Tuhin Dey should continue as

director, noting that he is not an accused in any charge-sheet or prosecution

complaint filed by the CBI, ED or local police and his conduct throughout has

been fair and necessary for operating the hotel chain.

45. Turning specifically to the subject property, Park Prime Hotel, Durgapur,

the ED submits that the property belongs to the Rose Valley Group and stands

provisionally attached under the PMLA. CHPL herein the respondent no.11

executed a Management Contract on September 13, 2021, appointing the

Petitioner being M/s Mahijas Infra Private Limited represented by its director,

one Ms. Mita Mahato, as a mere service provider tasked only with Sales and

[- 26 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Operation Consultancy for a fixed, non-continuous tenure of one year from

October 1, 2021 to September 3 0, 2022. Upon the expiration of the said

agreement on September 30, 2022, no renewal or supplementary agreement

was executed by the parties. Despite the formal expiration of the contract, the

petitioner unauthorisedly continued operating the premises and c ommitted

systematic, fundamental breaches of contract, forcing CHPL to invoke Clause 5

to terminate the contract on June 22, 2024 and reclaim physical possession on

June 23, 2024.

46. The learned Counsel details that the petitioner committed severe

breaches of trust by unlawfully sub-letting the hotel property without written

consent, entering into an unauthorised lease agreement with WOW Hospitality

Services on March 11, 2022 and executing a business operation management

contract with one M/s Surabhi Managemen t on October 20, 2023, thereby

completely parting with possession for a 40% profit commission in direct

violation of Clauses 6 and 7 of the contract. Furthermore, the petitioner

illegally demolished a portion of the hotel's boundary wall facing Junction Mall,

erected an unauthorised two-storied iron structure with an outdoor kitchen in

the hotel garden and sub-let it to operate a commercial restaurant named

Eatsin without respondent no.11's sanction or mandatory municipal and fire

safety licenses, while completely ignoring the show-cause notices issued on

November 10, 2022.

47. Furthermore, the ED highlights that on or about June 10, 2023, gross

illegal and immoral activities were actively carried out at the hotel premises

[- 27 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

under the petitioner's management in violation of Clause 6. Following specific

intelligence, the local police raided the premises, leading to the registration of

Durgapur P.S. Case No. 271 of 2023 under Sections 370, 371, 354A, 354B,

120B and 341 IPC, alongside Section 46A(C) of the Bengal Exci se Act. Both

directors of the petitioner company, including one Ms. Mita Mahato, were

formally arrested on charges of human trafficking and immoral trade causing

irreversible damage to the reputation of Hotel Park Prime.

48. In addition to criminal prosecution, the petitioner left behind massive

financial delinquencies, including outstanding occupational charge defaults of

Rs.5,72,800/-, for June 2022 against monthly charges up to termination,

failure to furnish TDS certificates (Form-16A) for Rs.8,56,000/-, unpaid

electricity liability of Rs.10,86,867/- to WBSEDCL, defaulted Provident Fund of

Rs.96,290/- and ESI dues of Rs.26,765/- (unpaid since April 2024), local

vendor debts of Rs.30–35 lakhs, unpaid travel agent commissions of

Rs.4,01,456/- due to Surabhi Management and sundry creditor liabilities of

Rs.29,48,036/- accumulated from December 2023 to June 22, 2024. The

petitioner also caused extensive structural vandalism by leaving room air

conditioners broken and stripped of refrigerant gas, breaking the kitchen’s

fresh air ventilation systems, operating without a Fire License, submitting an

inflated exterior painting bill of Rs.7,57,345/- in 2022 using lowest-grade

materials, allowing costly internal DG set parts to go missing (withheld by

vendors due to non-payment) and unauthorisedly using the hotel compound to

[- 28 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

park and operate 3 pollution control dust removal vehicles belonging to its

other independent business trades.

49. As such, the ED contends that CHPL herein respondent no.11 was fully

justified under Clause 5 in rescinding the contract and retaking physical

possession on June 23, 2024. The present writ petition is non-maintainable as

it arises out of an expired, determinable commercial service contract between

private entities, where specific performance or restoration of possession is

barred under Sections 12 and 14(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Moreover,

the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands by suppr essing its

gross financial delinquencies and the criminal arrests of its directors for

human trafficking. The Enforcement Directorate therefore submits for the

dismissal of the writ petition being WPA 17346 of 2024 with exemplary costs.

50. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that pursuant to the

order dated July 23, 2026, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.A. No. 27005 of

2016 (Kalipada Pal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.), the State of West Bengal

has submitted its supplementary report -in-compliance setting forth its

administrative position and recommendations. It is submitted that by an

earlier order dated May 11, 2015, passed in W.P. No. 275 of 2015, this Hon'ble

Court was pleased to constitute the ADC comprising Hon'ble Justice Dilip

Kumar Seth (Retd.), former Judge of the Calcutta High Court, as Chairman,

along with the Inspector-General of Registration, Government of West Bengal

(or his nominee) and the Managing Director of the petitioner company as

members. The learned Counsel highlights that the ADC was duly empowered to

[- 29 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

sell the corporate assets of the company and disburse the sale proceeds among

the victimised depositors, subject to obtaining prior leave from this Hon'ble

Court.

51. Regarding the immediate monetization of corporate properties, the

learned Counsel submits that at present there are twenty-one hotels belonging

to the Rose Valley Group of companies which can be sold for the recovery of

money owed to the depositors. It is submitted that until the sale and disposal

of these 21 hotels are concluded, the ADC ought to continue its functions so

that the sale process can be given effect in a just and time-bound manner as

this Court deems fit. Upon conclusion of the sale of these 21 hotels, the entire

money collected shall be deposited directly with the ADC.

52. The learned Counsel further draws attention to the ongoing expenditure,

submitting that all expenses incurred by the One-Man Committee have been

borne directly by the State exchequer since the year 2022. To ensure that

future proceedings are conducted in a cost-effective and speedy manner under

judicial supervision, the State suggests that as soon as the 21 hotels of the

Rose Valley Group are disposed of and the sale proceeds received, the ADC

should be merged with the One-Man Committee constituted by order of this

Hon'ble Court.

53. The Learned Counsel appearing for the SFIO has submitted its report

and contends that pursuant to the order dated December 4, 2025, passed by

this Hon'ble High Court and the subsequent notification dated February 1 3,

2026, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under Section 212(1)(c) of the

[- 30 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Companies Act, 2013, a comprehensive investigation was mandated into the

affairs of twenty-four Rose Valley Group companies falling within the purview

of the ADC. It is submitted that the scope of the investigation encompassed an

exhaustive examination of all attached assets, sales transactions, financial

records, valuation reports, auction proceedings and disbursement trails under

Enforcement Directorate attachment and ADC oversight.

54. The learned Counsel points out that although the ADC was originally

constituted by an order dated May 11, 2015, in W.P. No. 275 of 2015 to

monetize assets and compensate victimised investors, the committee remained

substantially non-functional for nearly a decade owing to the absence of

necessary infrastructure, funds, office premises and staff, becoming effectively

operational only from March 2024. It is further submitted that following

depositor grievances raised in CAN No. 12 of 2024 regarding operational

inconsistencies, this Court directed multi-agency audit scrutiny, which

ultimately led to the present SFIO investigation.

55. Regarding the claim invitation methodology, the SFIO submits that the

ADC invited claims exclusively through an online portal, cross-checking them

against an offline database provided by the Rose Valley Group which was

inherently incomplete, containing records for merely five companies whereas

depositors uploaded claims pertaining to nine entities. Out of an estimated

total investor base of 1.2 crore, the ADC received only 32 lakh claims,

representing a meagre 25% registration rate attributable to digital-access

barriers, a complete lack of public outreach and the total absence of a

[- 31 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

dedicated helpline or grievance redressal facility on the portal. Owing to which

over half of the submitted applications were returned for modification and due

to absence of basic logical validation checks on the portal, approximately 14%

of the applications registered a zero claim amount, rendering the aggregate

portal claim figure unreliable against the group's admitted liability of Rs.9,090

crore. Furthermore, the rate of claim processing has been drastically slow, with

only 4.14 lakh claims (13%) processed and disbursals made to a mere 1.75

lakh claims (5.5%), meaning that clearing the total backlog at the current pace

would require more than 25 years. The learned counsel also highlights a

fundamental structural flaw in inviting claims on a certificate-wise basis rather

than per investor, forcing over 30% of depositors holding multiple certificates

into filing highly repetitive applications.

56. On asset management, the SFIO submits that the total attached assets

are grossly insufficient to cover the outstanding liabilities exceeding Rs.9,000

crore out of a total scam magnitude estimated at over Rs.17,000 crore. The

investigation revealed significant discrepancies between the asset list of the

Enforcement Directorate comprising 1,288 assets valued at Rs.1,223.07 crore

and that of the ADC comprising 4,417 assets valued at Rs. 1,551.23 crore, with

the ADC holding title deeds for only 29% of its attached properties. Although

242 additional untraced assets valued over Rs. 230 crore were identified during

the forensic exercise, out of 864 attached immovable properties under the ADC,

valuations have been completed for only 80 properties i.e., only 9% indicating

[- 32 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

that evaluating the remaining 784 properties would take another 22 to 26

years, while only 10 properties have been successfully auctioned to date.

57. Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, learned counsel who has been appointed as

Amicus Curie in the instant matter submits that the ADC did not discharge its

duties in terms of the order dated 11

th

May, 2015 read with the order dated

14

th

December, 2017. He has drawn our attention to several minutes of the

meetings held by the ADC in this regard. He contends that the ADC did not

have any power or authority to allow anybody to enter into any management

contract. He further submits that in terms of the order dated 11

th

May, 2015

read with the order dated 14

th

December, 2017, the ADC was only supposed to

takes steps for selling the properties following the guidelines framed by this

Court as recorded in the order dated 11

th

May, 2015. He further submits that

the main purpose for which the ADC was constituted for developing a scheme

for recovery and monetization of the assets of the company as well as for their

disbursal. No power had been given to ADC to enter into any management

contract with anybody. He submits that the ADC should have approached this

Hon’ble Court before allowing others to enter into the management contract

and steps taken by ADC permitting to enter into the management contract is

contrary to the direction of this Court. He contends that authorizing Mr. Tuhin

Dey to enter into the management contract with others was beyond the scope

of the powers of ADC and such authorization is contrary to the mandate of this

Hon’ble Court recorded in the order dated 11

th

May, 2015 read with the order

dated 14

th

December, 2017. He also submits that because of such wrongful

[- 33 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

acts of the ADC, the depositors have suffered immensely as no effective steps

have been taken by ADC for disbursal of money to the depositors.

58. Learned Counsel for the ADC submits that pursuant to the directions

issued by this Hon'ble Court, Stock Holding Document Management Services

(hereinafter referred to as ‘SDMS’) has submitted the future operational

roadmap for web-portal-based restitution to depositors, while the Assets

Disposal Committee (ADC) has submitted its audit report.

59. It is submitted that the financial management and administrative

accounts of the ADC have been audited by independent Chartered Accountants

across two distinct phases. For the initial period from October 15, 2015 to

February 3, 2021 (audited by Anup Dhan Mukherjee, FCA), the Committee

managed an aggregate receipt of Rs.10,39,945/-, comprising an initial seed

grant of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Government of West Bengal, Rs.5,00,000 /-

from the defendant party and bank savings interest of Rs.39,945/-, which was

utilised towards advocate fees of Rs.5,41,244/-, stenographer/clerk charges of

Rs.3,07,037/- and accounting expenses, leaving a closing balance of

Rs.1,87,643.25/-. For the subsequent period from February 4, 2021 to March

31, 2025 (audited by R. Sonthalia & Company, Chartered Accountants), the

Committee received Rs.1,10,91,533.85/-, including Rs.1,08,00,000/- collected

from Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.50,000/- from Drisya Management Pvt.

Ltd., against which administrative expenses including remuneration to the

Hon'ble Chairman being Rs.54,00,000/-, legal fees being Rs.11,16,955/- and

[- 34 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

advertisement expenses being Rs.13,93,197/- were disbursed, maintaining a

closing balance of Rs. 23,90,967.68/-.

60. Regarding property monetisation and fund accumulation, the Learned

Counsel submits that the ADC has successfully conducted public e -auctions

through SEBI for 10 immovable properties and through MSTC for 4 motor

vehicles, realising an aggregate sum of Rs.70,58,12,959.21 /- comprising

Rs.70,33,95,610/- from immovable properties and Rs.24,17,346/- from vehicle

sales. At present, realised auction funds are held across designated accounts,

including Rs.2.22 crore in the Punjab National Bank High Court Branch,

Rs.68.15 Crores with SEBI and Rs.24.17 Lakhs with MSTC, while 97 additional

movable and immovable properties remain in the pipeline for upcoming e -

auctions. Furthermore, Chocolate Hotels Pvt. Ltd. remitted Rs.3,54,00,000/-

directly to the ADC and directly defrayed Rs.8,29,87,355/- towards ADC staff

salaries, office infrastructure and portal running costs, while the Special PMLA

Court transferred Rs.517.54 crore (inclusive of accrued interest) to the ADC in

April 2025. Out of these accumulated funds, the ADC has historically

disbursed Rs.127,64,08,806/- to 1,73,271 depositors across 16 prior phases.

61. Presenting the comprehensive operational plan prepared by SDMS,

Learned Counsel submits that automated fund disbursements through the

SDMS web portal are scheduled to commence on September 21, 2026. To

ensure system stability and verification accuracy, a trial phase will operate

from September 21, 2026 to October 01, 2026, restricted to a pilot volume of

10 disbursements per day. Thereafter, operations will scale up rapidly between

[- 35 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

September 21, 2026 and October 10, 2026, reaching a daily processing rate of

3,000 disbursements per bank working day by October 10, 2026. A major

milestone event is scheduled for October 12, 2026, involving a lumpsum

disbursement to approximately 60,000 investors, following which the daily run-

rate of 3,000 disbursements will be sustained on a 5-day weekly basis.

62. Learned counsel highlights that the ADC currently holds Rs.470.38 crore

in the depositors' account. Based on projected daily velocities, this entire

balance of Rs.470.38 crore is estimated to be fully disbursed and exhausted

within 6 months. To fully satisfy all 14,10,816 Unique Investors (aggregated on

a "One Aadhaar One Payment" basis) against over 32 lakh registered claims,

the total estimated fund requirement stands at Rs.1,200 crore, computed at a

refund cap of up to Rs.10,200/- per unique claimant. For non -Aadhaar

applications among the registered claims, a separate 3-month portal upgrade

program will be executed to facilitate Aadhaar linking.

63. To ensure equitable distribution, payments will be prioritise d

sequentially using a phased bucketing structure based on aggregate deposit

ranges per investor being, 1

st

Phase between Re. 1 to Rs. 10,200/-, 2

nd

Phase

between Rs.10,201/- to Rs.20,000/-, 3

rd

Phase between Rs.20,001 /- to

Rs.30,000/-, 4

th

Phase between Rs.30,001/- to Rs. 40,000/-and 5

th

Phase

between Rs.40,001/- to Rs. 50,000/-.

64. In the event that the available balance of Rs. 470.38 crore is exhausted

prior to fresh financial inflows, the SDMS portal will remain fully operational

for claim verification and registration, while active bank transfers will be

[- 36 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

temporarily paused and seamlessly resumed immediately upon the receipt of

additional funds or sale proceeds into the depositors' accounts.

65. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties this Court finds that

views the petitioner in WPA 17346 of 2024, Mahijas Infra Private Limited,

instituted proceedings seeking the quashing of eviction directives issued by the

Asset Disposal Committee (ADC) and restoration of physical possession of Park

Prime Hotel, Durgapur, alongside daily operational compensation, claiming to

have executed a Management Contract Agreement on September 13, 2021,

with M/s Chocolate Hotels Private Limited (CHPL) and incurred a total advance

outlay of Rs.93,27,973/- towards labour liabilities, electricity arrears,

municipal taxes and capital overhauls. On the other hand, respondent no.11

being CHPL and the Enforcement Directorate submitted that CHPL is a wholly-

owned subsidiary of the Rose Valley Group whose attached properties fall

under PMLA proceedings, that the management contract was a non -continuous

service agreement for one year expiring on September 30, 2022 without formal

renewal and that the petitioner committed mater ial breaches including

unauthorised sub-letting, illegal construction, financial defaults and

involvement in criminal proceedings.

66. Upon evaluating the submissions and materials on record, this Court

holds that the writ petition filed by Mahija is dismissed on the primary ground

that the dispute between the parties is essentially a private commercial dispute

involving complex and disputed questions of fact. Sitting as a specialised Ponzi

Bench entrusted with summary powers for asset preservation and deposito r

[- 37 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

liquidation, this Court cannot entertain private contractual controversies or

enforce specific performance of determinable commercial agreements, as such

matters fall entirely outside the scope of its jurisdiction in these proceedings.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil or

commercial forum for seeking neces sary legal reliefs and remedies, if

permissible in law.

67. Crucially, addressing the underlying legal validity of the contractual

arrangements, this Court observes that no power save and except the

supervision of the sale of assets of the Rose Valley Group and the

disbursement of sale proceeds to victimised depositors was ever vested upon

the Asset Disposal Committee by this Court. Consequently, M/s Chocolate

Hotels Private Limited (CHPL), being a subsidiary of the Rose Valley Group, was

in no way authorised on behalf of the ADC to enter into management contracts

with third parties for running hotels belonging to the Rose Valley Group. By

executing such unauthoris ed commercial contracts, CHPL improperly

generated funds from the proceeds of crime, rendering all such management

contracts unauthorised, null and void ab initio.

68. Turning next to the functioning and governance of the Asset Disposal

Committee (ADC), this Court takes serious judicial note of the performance of

the ADC over the past decade from 2015 to 2026. Referring to the investigation

findings submitted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and multi-

agency audit reports, it is recorded that the ADC remained substantially non-

functional for nearly ten years due to severe deficiencies in infrastructure,

[- 38 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

funding, office premises and administrative staff. This Court observes that

while the principal mandate entrusted to the ADC was to identify, value and

attract prospective investors for the timely disposal and monetisation of

attached Rose Valley properties, its actual operational performance has fallen

substantially short of that core objective.

69. In examining the record of asset monetisation, it is noted that during this

decade-long tenure, the ADC issued public advertisements on merely two

occasions for inviting investors/depositors. Even on those rare occasions, the

public response was exceptionally poor, attracting only about 25% of expected

investors/depositors while leaving nearly 75% of the affected depositors

completely unreached. Consequently, the ADC failed to discharge its

fundamental responsibility of ensuring wider public participation in the

property disposal and sale process. Furthermor e, despite administering

attached assets valued at approximately Rs. 600 crore under its supervision,

the ADC succeeded in disbursing only around Rs. 55.45 crore to victimised

depositors, leaving over 90% of the corpus undistributed alongside massive

claim scrutiny backlogs. The SFIO inspection further revealed that out of the

attached immovable properties under the ADC's oversight, valuations were

completed for only 80 properties representing a meagre percentage of the total

properties and merely 10 properties were successfully auctioned over eleven

years.

70. In evaluating the overall conduct of the Committee over the last eleven

years from 2015 to 2026, this Court expresses grave dissatisfaction with the

[- 39 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Committee's sluggish pace of functioning, systematic mi smanagement of

depositors' accounts and total failure to safeguard corporate assets. Instead of

fulfilling its liquidating mandate, the ADC permitted the generation of funds

from proceeds of crime by allowing illegal management contracts to be executed

with third parties through CHPL, a Rose Valley subsidiary. As a direct result of

this prolonged administrative inertia and inability to sell corporate assets, the

value of moveable properties under administration has depreciated to almost

nil, while the majority of immovable properties have fallen into a severely

dilapidated condition.

71. To remedy these ongoing operational deficiencies and enforce strict

administrative accountability, this Court, taking into consideration earlier

directions dated December 14, 2017, requests the State of West Bengal to

direct Deputy Director, Director of Economic Offences to become an integral

part of the functioning of the ADC by maintaining continuous oversight, and

extending all necessary assistance. Furthermore, the ADC is granted a final

extended period of five months as requested by Mr. Bachawat, ld. Senior

Counsel appearing for the ADC to complete the process of selling attached

properties (movable and immovable) and disbursing proceeds to eligible

claimants/depositors. Crucially, prior to the final completion of the exercise,

the entire depositor fund amounting to Rs.550 crore held in the depositors'

account must be fully disbursed against the 32,43,220 pending claims before

the ADC within 15

th

November, 2026. During this extended period, the ADC

shall submit a monthly compliance report before this Court with the first report

[- 40 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

being on November 17, 2026 enabling continuous judicial monitoring until its

assigned responsibilities are concluded. Upon the expiry of this extend ed

timeline ending on February 28, 2027, if any residual assets, undistributed

funds or unresolved administrative matters remain, the same shall stand

automatically transferred to the One-Man Committee for appropriate legal

action.

72. Having concluded that th e ADC's prolonged inefficiency and

mismanagement cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely to the prejudice

of helpless investors, this Court orders that the Assets Disposal Committee

shall be merged with the Justice S. P. Talukdar Committee (also referred to as

‘JSPTC’), which is already managing the claims of victimised depositors across

103 Chit Fund Companies after the aforesaid period of five months.

73. Post-merger, the standard operating procedure established and followed

by the JSPTC regarding the 103 Chit Fund Companies shall automatically

apply to the Rose Valley Group of Companies. Upon finalising all procedural

and administrative formalities of the merger, the JSPTC shall submit a

comprehensive status report before this Court regarding the Rose Valley Group

of Companies. Finally, as submitted in the report of the State of West Bengal,

the State authorities shall extend their full cooperation and take prompt

initiatives throughout the merger process with the sole objective of refunding

all helpless depositors expeditiously. Similarly, the Enforcement Directorate, as

a key statutory stakeholder of the ADC, shall extend complete cooperation to

ensure the smooth execution of these judicial directions. The Enforcement

[- 41 - ]

WPA 27005 of 2016

Directorate is also directed to attach any other properties which have not yet

been attached by them as mentioned in the report of the SFIO and file a fresh

report on November 19, 2026.

74. The SFIO is directed to complete its forensic audit on all Rose Valley

Group of Companies within December 31, 2026 and file its final report

thereafter.

75. With the aforesaid observation WPA 17346 of 2024 stands disposed of.

Other matters be listed on 1

st

October, 2026, for consideration.

76. All parties shall act upon the server copy of this judgment, duly

downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court.

….………………………………..

(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J)

….………………………………..

(Sudip Deb, J)

Kolkata

PA (BS)

29.09.2026