Debi Prosad Dey, J.

1. The petitioners being aggrieved by the communication dated March, 20, 2014 bearing no. 873-UD/O/M/SL(AL/NR)/8L-48/95(Pt.) have filed this writ petition praying for quashing the said communication as well as for a direction upon respondent no.2 particularly to forthwith allow the petitioners to change the name of the lessee in the records of the respondents from Jibansatya Printing House Private Limited to GPT Healthcare Private Limited and to change the purpose of use of the land in question being premises no. DD-6, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064 from office building to Nursing Home/Hospital allied services.

The Government of West Bengal being the lessor executed a deed of lease in favour of Jibansatya Printing House Private Limited for construction of office building for the period of 999 years as per the terms and conditions contained in the said deed of lease vide annexure P1. Clause 9 of the said deed of lease provides that the lessee shall not be permitted to change the user of land without the permission in writing of the Government or other authority prescribed in that behalf. The lease was granted for construction of office building.

The Government of West Bengal, (Urban Development Department) issued the notification no. 1722-UD/O/M/SL(AL/NR)/8L-8/2004(Pt.) dated Kolkata, the 6th May, 2005 whereby and whereunder the Government of West Bengal adopted a policy to permit the lessee to change the original purpose of lease on examination of proposal to that effect and on payment of fees according to prescribed rates of such notification. The Government of West Bengal has also agreed to execute and register a deed of rectification to the original lease deed on payment of fees. Such notification has been amended from time to time by enhancing the fees and as per the latest notification being no. 4004-UD/O/M/SL(AL)/NR)/8L-08/04 dated Kolkata, the 8th December, 2011 the permission fees have been enhanced up to rupees one lakh per katha.

This is the third round of litigation for changing the user of the land by the petitioners taking into consideration the change of name of the company. At the outset the lease was granted in favour of Jibansatya Printing House Private Limited for construction of office building. Subsequently, the name of the company has been changed to 'GPT Healthcare Private Limited'. The said company has also changed its trade from construction of office building to Nursing Home/Hospital and allied services. The prayer of the company was not considered at the earliest on the ground that the name of the company as well as the trade of the company were changed and as such the prayer of such new company cannot be acceded to. The matter was agitated before this Court and the Court held in writ petition no.3910(W) of 2010 that change of the name of the company would not change the entity of the company and the authorities could not appreciate the law relating to companies under the Companies Act, 1956 to the effect that mere change of name of a company would not change the juristic entity of such company. No appeal has been preferred against that order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, not only in terms of that decision of this Court but also in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 change of name of the company concerned will not change the juristic entity of such company. The state respondents thereafter did not take any steps in terms of such direction of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and again another writ petition was filed by the petitioners and in writ petition no. 2005(W) of 2014 this Court directed the state respondents to communicate a decision in respect of the petitioners application for change of name and change of use of the relevant Salt Lake property to the petitioners by a written communication within six weeks from date. The state respondents ultimately sent a communication to the petitioners stating inter-alia that after examination of such prayer for change of name from Jibansatya Printing House Private Limited to GPT Healthcare Private Limited and change of land use purpose in respect of plot no. DD-6 Sector-I Salt Lake cannot be acceded to by the department. Learned Advocate Mr. Tulsidas Roy appearing on behalf of the state respondents submitted that the instant writ application is not maintainable since the same has not been filed by Jibansatya Printing Private Limited. Secondly, lease was granted for construction of office and therefore change of use of such land in contravention of the clauses of the deed of lease is not permissible under law. The petitioners have violated very many clauses of such lease deed by constructing a multi - purpose 11 stored building without any sanction and started using such building without any approval from the Government. The State of West Bengal has thus terminated the said lease and has sent notice for eviction of the petitioners. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents further submitted that the Government has determined the lease for violation of the clauses of the deed of lease and that the writ Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of appellate forum of such decision of the Government.

Lastly, it is submitted that such action has been taken as a policy decision of the Government and such policy decision of the Government cannot be the subject matter of judicial review.

Learned Advocate Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in view of the decision in writ petition no. 3910(W) of 2010 the state respondents cannot raise the question in respect of change of the name of the company. Mr. Chatterjee further contended that the State of West Bengal has adopted a policy to permit the lessee to change the user of land or use of land on payment of appropriate fees by issuing the notifications mentioned herein above and accordingly the state respondents cannot refuse to accept the proposal for change of land used by the petitioners. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are only liable to pay such fees, as was prevalent on the date of their application in view of the decisions given by this Court in very many matters. However, Mr. Chatterjee fairly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the fees according to the present prevalent rate.

On careful scrutiny of memo no. 873-UD/O/M/SL(AL/NR)/8L- 48/95(Pt.) dated 20th March, 2014, it transpires that absolutely no reason has been assigned by Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department as to why the prayer for change of name of the company and change of land use purpose have not been acceded to by the department. It is well settled principle of law that any order devoid of reasons should be declared to be perverse. In other words action on the part of the government or on the part of any department of such Government bereft of reasons should be directed to be perverse in common parlance of law. The apex Court has also observed that when judicial power is exercised by any authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, should disclose reasons in support of such order. AIR 1971 SC 862(M/s. Travancore Rayons Ltd. Vs. Union of India). Therefore, the aforesaid letter of the Joint Secretary, dated 20th March, 2014 does not disclose any reasons as to why such prayer of the petitioners have not been acceded to by the department. On that score alone such letter of the Joint Secretary dated 20th March, 2014 may safely be set aside. Annexure P6 being Memo no.1890-UD/O/M/SL(AL/NR) 8 L-48/95 dated 23.05.2005 reveals that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal of Urban Development Department issued a letter in reply to the proposal for change of trade in respect of plot no. 6 in block DD to the erstwhile company of the petitioners requesting them to produce necessary documents and to pay necessary fees in terms of the Government notification no. 1722-UD dated 06.05.2005.

Pursuant to such letter necessary documents were produced before the state respondents but they did not take any action and accordingly this Court directed the authorities to take a decision in writ petition no. 2005(W) of 2014 and thereafter the letter dated 20th March, 2014 was sent to the petitioners. Mr. Chatterjee has referred a decision reported in (1992)2 SCC 411 (Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.) in support of his contention that even declaration by the officials of the Government would prevent the Government from back tracking such assurance of the officials of Government on the ground of promissory estoppel. The said decision clearly indicates that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the Government also. In the case under reference one of the Government officials has virtually requested the petitioners to produce necessary documents and to pay necessary fees in terms of the notification issued by the Government and such assurance on the part of the responsible officer of the Government would be binding upon the concerned department in terms of the principle of promissory estoppel.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the state respondents however has tried to refute such argument on the ground that no specific assurance was given to the petitioners by such letter but the department was contemplating to consider such proposal of the petitioners on fulfilling certain terms and conditions and on payment of fees in terms of the notification mentioned therein. The notifications have been annexed with the writ petition vide annexure P5. It is crystal clear from such notifications that the Government of West Bengal has taken a specific policy decision so that the unused industrial and commercial plots be utilized properly by permitting the lessee to change the project for which the plots were allotted to them on payment of particular fees and also to execute and register necessary deed of rectification to that effect. Therefore, the policy decision of the state of West Bengal also tells in favour of the petitioners and the department concerned cannot avoid such prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the proposal of the petitioners is contrary to the policy decision of the Government of West Bengal. The petitioners, as per submission of Mr. Chatterjee are ready to pay the necessary fees at the present prevalent rate. The petitioners are now trying to change the purpose of use of such land from construction of office building to a hospital. The purpose of construction of the office building and the purpose of construction of hospital are absolutely different.

Learned Advocate for the State has also relied on a decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1030(M/s. Chingleput Bottlers V. M/s. Majestic Bottling Co. and State of Tamil Nadu V. Majestic Bottling Co.).

Learned Advocate categorically submitted that the writ Court cannot direct the Government to take a particular decision and such decision ought to be within the discretion of the concerned government. The facts and circumstances of the said decision are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition. Moreover, no specific direction is being given to the State Government or it’s officials to take a particular decision. The action on the part of the officials of the Government of West Bengal should be in conformity with the provision of law and should be reasonable. It appears from the letter dated 20th March, 2014 that the Joint Secretary to the Urban Development Department has simply communicated to the petitioners that their prayer could not be acceded to without assigning any reasons thereof. The apex Court has never stated that the officials of the Government should be permitted to take any arbitrary decision or to take any decision without assigning any reasons thereof. Therefore, the submission of learned Advocate of the State on that score fails. The further plea of the State respondents of public policy also does not find support from the notifications issued by the State of West Bengal vide annexure P5. On the contrary the State of West Bengal has issued such notifications and thereby adopted a policy to permit the change of use of such lands on payment of fees.

Lastly, I would like to mention here that on 21st July, 2015 this Court directed the state respondents to produce all the original records of the case before this Court while giving opportunity to the state respondents to file affidavit in opposition but the state respondents did not file any such original records of the case in order to justify

their claim. On that score also it is evident that the state respondents did not justify their action before the writ Court so as to accept their case. After going through the materials on record I have no hesitation to say that the order passed by Hon’ble Justice Sanjib Banerjee has not been complied with by the state respondents in its letter and spirit and in the name of communication, a cryptic letter has been served upon the petitioners without assigning any reasons thereof. In that view of such case such letter dated 20th March, 2014 in Memo no. 873- UD/O/M/SL(AL/NR)/8L-48/95(Pt.) is set aside. The state respondent particularly respondent no.2 is directed to examine the proposal of the petitioners afresh keeping in mind the policy decision of the Government of West Bengal as incorporated in the notifications mentioned herein above and in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at an early date but not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and to communicate the decision thereof to the petitioners in black and white within a week. The writ petition is thus disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.