Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners then applied to the Collector of the Stamp Revenue, Calcutta together with a copy of draft lease for adjudication of stamp duty chargeable on tbe lease deed under Indian Stamp Act. The Stamp Duty chargeable on the instrument was assessed by the Collector of Stamp Revenue, Calcutta at Rs.2,13,370/-. Thereafter the petitioners purchased the requisite Stamp paper for the said amount.

2. The facts as delineated above from the persual of the connected writ petition seem to be undisputed and there is no material controversy with regard to specific allegations made as aforesaid. On despatch of the certificate issued by the Collector of Stamp Revenue, Calcutta on 5-5-1993, instead of giving effect to the same the then ex officio Assistant Secretary to the respondent No. 1 directed the petitioners to submit certain documents mentioned therein for completing the execution and registration of the said lease deed. It was alleged that on receipt of the said letter the petitioners furnished the said documents and it was alleged that the requisitions made in the said tetter under reference were duly complied with and the petitioners were anxiously waiting for the respondents to take action in the matter. The same was followed up by lapse of time and the petitioners-were constrained to send reminder on 19-8-1994. As the same did not accelerate the course of action due to be taken by the respondents, further letter was sent on 26-6-1995. The writ petitioners have alleged conspicuous silence as a result of which time was allowed to consume by which the petitioners were made to suffer substantially. The pith and substance of the case of the petitioners rotate round their stand on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the concerned respondents to execute and register the lease Deed in respect of their allotted plot No. 1B-167 in Sector III, Salt Lake City and for Writ of Certiorari calling for records and for issuance of Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from withholding the prayer for execution and registration of the lease Deed. The concerned respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition have made a thrust primarily on the preliminary ground that the writ petition is not maintainable. The sheet-anchor of suggestion offered in the Affidavit-in-Opposition with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition is on the score that the parties having entered into concluded contract and the contract being non-statutory in nature, the same is capable of being enforced by a suit for specific performance before a competent Civil Court and the reliefs cannot be obtained by way of writ petition for enforcement of the rights as covered by the ambit of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The further stand 'was taken in the said Affidavit-in-Opposition is on the footing that the petitioners had adopted a dilatory tactics in the matter of execution of the Deed of Lease. It was alleged that one Sri S. Roy and another Sri S. Mitra carried on a previous correspondences in their capacities as diretors though they were not directors at the material point of time since they had resigned from the said post. The respondents daveloped doubts about the bona fides of the company and according to the respondents they addressed two letters dated 20-4-1994 and 9-9-1994 which remained unheeded and no reply was given to the same. There was another letter according to the respondents dated 6-9-1995 addressed to the petitioners which was allegedly returned with the endorsement on the Postal cover as "Not Known". The respondents took the plea that because of the same they started harbouring doubts about the existence of the petitioner No. 1 company and they were in a mood to embark into a journey of enquiry about the financial ability of the petitioner No. 1 company and also the bona fides of its office beearers including of directors. The petitioners in their Affidavit-in-Reply have taken the stand that Sri S. Roy had signed a letter dated 18-2-1983 as director and thereafter his designation was Director (Project) of the petitioner No. 1 company and he still continues to be so being in charge of the hotel project. As regards two letters, mentioned in the Affidavit-in-Opposition dated 20-4-1994 and 9-9-1994, no copy of the same was annexed to the affidavit when the positive stand of the petitioners that they did not receive the aforesaid letters. There was much wrangling about the exchange of letters between the prties and in the contentions and couner-contentions as to whether Sri S. Roy and Sri S. Mitra were the directors and they had authority, to take correspondences on behalf of the company. It has been stated in: succint terms by way of submissions in the Affidavit-in-Reply that the allotment of the proposed plot of land was made in favour of the petitioner No. 1 which is a corporate entity being distinct and separate from its directors. The placement or replacement of directors or other office bearers of the company are matters of internal administration of the company and it has been contended that offer of the land in favour of the respondent No. 1 company must have been made after being satisfied about the financial capacity of the said company by the concerned respondents. The affirmation of the subjective satisfaction about the financial1 capacity of the subjective satisfaction about the financial capacity of the petitioner No. I company is to be borne from the subsequent payment duly made by the said company as per demands made from the side of the respondents. It has been also alleged that after having received the entire consideration money at its escalated rate including that of interest on account of delayed payment, the, respondents are duty bound to perform their obligation and they cannot enjoy the benefit of the receipt and acceptance of the consideration money and the said respondents cannot in law afford to sit tight over the matter for indefinite duration. From the perusal of assessment of the totality of the affidavits-filed in the proceeding and on persual of the pleadings taken by the respondents this Court is to consider as to after acceptance of money from a corporate entity which has a distinct juristic character and the respondents are required to deal with the said juristic entity namely, the company itself and not it officebearers. The controversial aspects of facts about the alleged representation of one S. Roy and S. Mitra about their continuance as directors in the company how far can in law activate the hands of the respondents and their over-jelous officers to sit tight on the matters. It does not appear that any counter offer was made at any point of time to return the said amount with interest laying with the respondents but the petitioners have been kept at a bay from proceeding further with the proposed construction of the three Star hotel. The terms and stipulations as contained in the offer letter are binding on the parties and the petitioners may also be interested to go ahead with the matter in view of the possibility of escalation of cost of construction with price hike.

From the perusal of the prayers of the connected writ petition it appears that a Writ of Mandamus has been prayed for seeking directions from the respondents No. 1 to 4 to execute and register the lease deed in respect of their allotted plot No. 1B-167 in Sector III, Salt Lake City, Calcutta for the period as mentioned and also for an order of injunction restraining the respondents from allotting the aforesaid plot to any other person during the pendency of the writ application and from withholding their consent in conceding the prayer for execution and registration of the aforesaid lease and for other ancillary reliefs. The petitioners have also tried to project grievance about denial of their legitimate expectation and interference with their right to carry on with the proposed business. The petitioner No. 1 has further asserted that it after having fulfilled its part of contract and/ or agreement being ready and willing to perform the rest of it, it is incumbent upon the respondents to complete and fulfil their obligations thereunder by executing the Deed of Lease. It brings us to the arena of the expanding field of the complicated question that even in contractual field where State-is a party, how far State is required to act fairly, honestly and arbitrary action on the State clouding the effectuation of a contract, how far is amenable to interference in Writ Jurisdiction.

7. This Court after applying the principles of law as crystallised from the catena of decisions referred to above is of the view that the actions of the State which bear insignia of public law elements or public character and the State actions must bear the imprint of public interest element in the behaviourial pattern of the officers of the State and if liberty of the public is invaded to enter into such contract, then same appears to be amenable (o judicial review on the anvil of the twin concepts of equality and absence of arbitrariness. The conduct of the agents of the State must be reasonable and unreasonableness of their conduct cannot be allowed to eat into very vitals of the investors made on honest believe that State and/or its agents would discharge their functions fairly. In the instant case, this Court has not been able to appreciate the conduct of the agents of the State respondents by embarking into a roving enquiry about any suspicion either of financial capacity of the petitioners or of the bona fides of their move for investment and as per stipulation of the agreement itself if they are found to be incapable of responding to the offers meted but to them by completion of the transaction, the Authorities have their remedies to forfeit the benefit of allotment as per provisions of subsisting agreement. Here, rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination and rules of fair play and natural justice are the cementing bones which build the layer of the super structure of rule of law applicable in situations of actions by the State instrumentality in dealing with citizens'. Even the manner, method and motive of decision in the field of contractual domains where one of the parties to the contract is 'State', the manner, method and motive of prosecution in giving shape to the contract of agreement are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness. This Court after giving its anxious consideration and meticulous scrutiny about the records of the transaction emanating from the agreement does not find any justification of the stand taken by the agents of the State. Accordingly, on contested hearing of the matter this Court issues a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to execute and register the Lease Deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of their allotted plot No. 1B-167 in Sector III, Salt Lake City, Calcutta and also issue an order of injunction restraining the State respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from allotting the aforesaid plot to any other person till execution of the Lease Deed an question which is to be executed within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order. The writ petition thus stands allowed subject to grant of abovenoted directions against the respondents and the main petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India succeeds on contest.