JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Appellant’s contention is that, she has applied for, duly complied with all the formalities and obtained “mutation certificate” with respect to her leasehold property and is now legally free to mortgage her said property for what so ever purpose (for the purpose of a loan in this case), which she has been wrongfully prevented to do, by the respondent vide the impugned letter dated 27.05.2015. Appellant’s further contention is that her right to mortgage her leasehold property, is not subjected to the fact as to whether or not the property has been mutated in her name, in the government records. Respondent could not have overlooked her such right in the property, irrespective of its mutation being done in her name in government records. That, her right, title and interest to the said property as a lessee thereof, is not extinguished even if mutation thereof is not done, so is her right to deal with her leasehold property, free from all encumbrances. In such view of the matter, the letter dated 27.05.2015, impugned in the writ petition is arbitrary and illegal.

Thus, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 30.01.2019 in W.P.A. No. 792 (W) of 2017, by dint of which her challenge to the said impugned letter dated 27.05.2015 was turned down by the Bench and the said writ petition was dismissed.

2. The impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge is annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal here. The Hon’ble Single Judge has noted that the concerned leasehold property is situated at Premises No. CA-34, Sector-I, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700064. The Hon’ble Single Judge has also noted that by sending the impugned letter dated 27.05.2015, the respondent has informed the appellant regarding its inability to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to her, on the ground that she has not mutated her name as the lessee of the said plot of land. It appears that after considering the submissions of the respective parties, the Hon’ble Single Judge noted the appellant to have failed to come before the Court with clean hands, by disclosing all the materials and circumstances, to seek an equitable relief and on the ground as above has dismissed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge has also imposed a cost of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to be paid by the present appellant to the State Legal Service Authority, West Bengal, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of the impugned judgment.

3. The said judgment dated 30.01.2019 is under challenge in this appeal. Mr. Bose appearing for the appellant has during his argument concentrated on one hand on the factual aspect of the case and on the other, on the legal points, as are stated in brief herein below.

4. On the factual aspect Mr. Bose has submitted that it is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and illegal on the part of the respondent authority to deny the appellant a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of mortgaging her leasehold property, on the ground of her not mutating the same in the government records in her name as a lessee of the said property. He has relied strongly on the letter of the respondent authority dated 11.03.2013, to submit that by dint of the said letter the respondent authority has already taken note of the appellant to be the lessee of the concern property and allowed mutation of her name in the records. Mr. Bose has further submitted as to the very disputed question of fact in this case, i.e. relating to payment of ‘permission fees’ by the appellant, that, as per declaration made by the HDFC Bank, the cheque which the appellant issued to remit the ‘permission fee’ to the tune of Rs. 16,11,900/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Eleven Thousand Nine Hundred only) has already been honoured in favour of the respondent authority on 12.04.2013. He has also pointed out the fact that vide the authority’s letter dated 29.10.2014, his client has been informed regarding due amendment of the governm