Calcutta High Court
Eri-Tech Ltd. & Anr vs Board Of Trustees For The Port Of Kolata ... on 27 January, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP 645 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ERI-TECH LTD. & ANR.
Versus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLATA AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 27th January, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samit Talukdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv.
Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Adv.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Hirak Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.K. Baral, Adv.
...for the respondent.
The Court : The petitioners seek a mandamus directing the Kolkata Port Trust authorities not to take any action pursuant to the decision contained in the letters dated February 21, 2003 and June 2, 2003.
According to the petitioners, the Port Trust authorities had offered to grant 99 years' lease in respect of a land at Transport Depot Road with effect from January 2, 1997 by a writing dated August 1, 2001. The petitioners had reacted thereto by its writing dated October 10, 2001.
The Kolkata Port Trust authorities had, by the letter dated February 21, 2003 requested the petitioners to inform the respondents with regard to the acceptance 2 of the terms enumerated in the letter within a fortnight from such date. The petitioners reacted thereto by a writing dated April 7, 2003.
According to the petitioners, since they are already in possession of the plot in question, it is permissible for the Kolkata Port Trust authorities to grant lease of 99 years, subject to the consent of the Central Government. The Kolkata Port Trust authorities should be directed to consider such proposal. The petitioners are agreeable to pay the lease rentals. The petitioners are also agreeable to pay any reasonable interest that may be imposed by the Court.
The Kolkata Port Trust authorities are represented. It is submitted on their behalf that a sum in excess of Rs.1,33,00,000/- is due and payable by the petitioners for their continued occupation of the plot in question. The Kolkata Port Trust authorities have already initiated proceedings for recovery of possession under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The land policy does not permit the Kolkata Port Trust authorities to consider the proposals made by the petitioners.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The four letters referred to on behalf of the petitioners do not mature into an enforceable contract between the parties. The letter dated August 1, 2001 is from the Kolkata Port Trust authorities making an offer for 99 years' lease. This offer has not been accepted. The petitioners, however, have made a counter-claim with regard thereto by a letter dated October 10, 2001. The counter-offer was not accepted by the Kolkata Port Trust authorities. Kolkata Port Trust made another offer by their writing dated February 21, 2003. Again, the petitioners did not accept such offer and had proceeded to make a counter-offer by the letter dated April 7, 2003. Consequently, a binding contract did not come into being between the parties concerned. 3
The petitioners had impugned the letters dated February 21, 2003 and June 2, 2003, issued by the Kolkata Port Trust authorities. By the letter dated June 2, 2003, the Kolkata Port Trust authorities have required the petitioners to make over vacant and unencumbered possession of the land on August 1, 2003. It goes on to say that the continued occupation of the petitioners at the land in question would invite damages.
The parties did not agree to a lease being executed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners did not agree to the terms of the conditions of the Kolkata Port Trust authorities. The terms and conditions put forward by the Kolkata Port Trust authorities cannot be said to be unreasonable.
It appears that the land policy of the Kolkata Port Trust authorities requires a person wishing to come into any arrangement with the Kolkata Port Trust authorities in respect of an immovable property has to participate in an open auction for such purpose. The petitioners are seeking not to do so through the mechanism of the present writ petition. In the facts of this case, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition.
There is a dispute with regard to the quantum of the occupation charges payable by the petitioners for the continued occupation during the period of pendency of the writ petition as well as for the period prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- pursuant to orders of Court. The Kolkata Port Trust authorities claim a sum in excess of Rs.1,33,00,000/- excluding any interest.
It is submitted on behalf of the Kolkata Port Trust authorities that the Kolkata Port Trust authorities could not proceed with the eviction proceedings in view of the interim order of status quo being granted by this Court. 4
All the interim orders passed in this writ petition are vacated. The Estate Officer in seisin of the eviction proceedings will proceed in accordance with law with regard thereto. It is expected that the Estate Officer should complete such eviction proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Estate Officer in doing so will not grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. This order is passed in view of the long pendency of the writ petition since 2005 till date. A public property is involved here. It is in public interest. The status of such public property is required to be decided as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to Estate Officer to quantify the occupation charges payable by the petitioners for their occupation of the property from the date of their possession until their eviction.
With the aforesaid observations, WP No. 645 of 2005 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sp2.