Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 489
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
GPT Health CARE Private Limited & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12224(W) of 2014
Decided On : 05-10-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Prabir Gayen
For the Plaintiffs/Respondents: Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, Mr. Tulsidas Roy
The Government is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel and cannot backtrack on assurances given by its officials.
Headnote:
LAND LEASE - CHANGE OF NAME AND PURPOSE OF USE - GOVERNMENT POLICY - REASONED DECISION - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - WRIT PETITION : [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to change the name of the lessee and the purpose of use of the leased land from office building to nursing home/hospital. The Government of West Bengal had adopted a policy to permit such changes on payment of prescribed fees.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the communication from the Government refusing the petitioners' request was perverse as it did not provide any reasons. It also held that the Government was bound by the principle of promissory estoppel as one of its officials had requested the petitioners to produce necessary documents and pay fees in terms of the Government notification.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government's refusal to allow the change of name and purpose of use was valid. 2. Whether the Government was bound by the principle of promissory estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A decision by the Government or its department without providing reasons is considered perverse in law. 2. The principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the Government, and the Government is bound by the assurances of its officials.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Government's communication refusing the petitioners' request and directed the Government to re-examine the proposal in accordance with the Government's policy and the observations made by the Court.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
