Nirmal Kumar Lahiri vs The State of West Bengal

Ruma Pal, J.—The writ Petitioner No. 1 had purchased a fiat, being Flat No. 17/4, Karunamoyee Housing Estate, Sector-111, Salt Lake City, Calcutta-700 091 with effect from June 16, 1986. Initially, the said flat had been allotted to one Dr. N.C. Moitra and Smt. A. Moitra. The said flat was thereafter sold by the Moitras to the writ Petitioner No. 1 in 1986.

In 1994 the writ Petitioner No. 1 applied to the Urban Development Department for leave to sell the said flat to the writ Petitioner No. 2. The application was not disposed of by the concerned Authority. The writ Petitioner No. 1 filed a writ application against the inaction of the Authorities, being C.O. No. 10498 (W) of 1995 (Shri Nirmal Kumar Lahiri and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.). The said writ petition was disposed of on July 4, 1995 by directing the Authorities concerned to dispose of the writ Petitioner No. l''s application within a period specified after hearing the Petitioner and with a reasoned order. Such hearing was given by the Respondent No. 4 being the Officer-on-Special Duty and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal. By an order dated August 14, 1995 the application of the writ Petitioner No. 1 was rejected by the Authorities concerned. This order of rejection has been challenged in the present writ petition.

A copy of this writ petition was served on the Respondents. But, none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents to contest the proceedings.

I have considered and merits of this case and I am satisfied that the impugned order dated August 14, 1995, being part of Annexure ''I'' to the writ petition, cannot stand. It appears from the impugned order that the admitted position is that the writ Petitioner No. 1 applied for transfer of the flat in question on May 16, 1994. At that time the policy of the Government permitted transfer of flats. In fact, pursuant to such policy permission had been granted for several such transfers by me concerned Authorities. The policy changed in 1995. The new policy provides that transfer can only be made to a close relative. The writ Petitioner No. 1 wishes to transfer the flat in question to the writ Petitioner No. 2 who is not a relative at all. The rejection of the application of the writ Petitioner No. 1 by applying 1995 policy cannot be sustained. The writ Petitioner No. l''s application should have been considered with reference to the policy as it obtained when the application was made.

The impugned order dated August 14, 1995, being part of Annexure T to the writ petition, is accordingly set aside and quashed.

As the only ground for rejection of the application of the writ Petitioner No. 1 is unsustainable, the writ application is disposed of by directing the Respondents to grant permission to the writ Petitioner No. 1 for transfer of the flat in question, being Flat No. 17/4, Karunamoyee Housing Estate, Sector-Ill, Salt Lake City, Calcutta-700091, to the writ Petitioner No. 2 to whom the writ Petitioner No. 1 has already sold the said flat under a Registered Deed and mutate the name of the writ Petitioner No. 2 in respect of the said flat in the records on the basis of such registration.

The Respondents are directed to complete the implementation of this judgment and order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this writ application together with a copy of this judgment and order upon them.

Let the Notice showing service be kept with the records of this case.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment and order on the undertaking to apply for and obtain a certified copy thereof upon payment of usual charges.