JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Two appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the same impugned judgement and order dated July 5, 2023 passed in WPA 17656 of 2016.

2. MAT 167 of 2023 is at the behest of the State of West Bengal while MAT 19 of 2024 is at the behest of Siliguri and Jalpaiguri Development Authority (SJDA).

3. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the private respondent essentially sought specific performance of an alleged contract by way of a writ petition. He has referred to the facts of the case. He has contended that, although, SJDA granted a lease in favour of the private respondent for a period of 10 years, extendable for a further period of 11 years, the private respondent as the lessee did not discharge their obligations under such lease deed. The private respondent had failed to pay the lease rentals within time. The private respondent did not apply for extension of the lease nor any extension had been granted. According to him, there are many disputed questions of facts which the writ Court should not have entered into by way of a writ petition.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the State has contended that, State did not extend the period of lease. Reason for non- extension had been given. Moreover, the writ petitioner/private respondent did not ask SJDA for extension. SJDA in turn has not asked the State for extension of lease.

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the SJDA has contended that, initially, State floated an expression of interest for the purpose of setting up of an amusement park in respect of an area of land which is far in excess of what the private respondent was granted lease of.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the SJDA has contended that, a lease commencing with effect from September 26, 2006 in respect of 9.02 acres, had been granted to the private respondent. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the schedule of such lease deed. He has contended that, the private respondent was required to pay quarterly lease rentals. The private respondent had defaulted in payment of quarterly lease rentals with effect from June 2009.

7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the SJDA has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter dated August 26, 2009 by which, a moratorium for one year was granted to the private respondent towards payment of lease rentals. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the response thereto of the private respondent.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the SJDA has relied upon 2022 SCC OnLine SC 247 (Municipal Council Gondia versus Divi Works and Suppliers, HUF and others) and 2022 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 536 (Surjeet Singh Sahni versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others) in support of the contention that, a writ of mandamus granting the relief of specific performance of the contract/work order is not available.

9. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the SJDA has relied upon 2007 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 614 (Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd versus Hede And Company) for the proposition that, there is no concept of automatic renewal of lease by mere exercise of option by the lessee.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent has relied upon a list of dates. He has contended that, State issued an expression of interest for 14 acres of land, for the purpose of setting up a recreation Park. State had issued a notice inviting bids for the development of an ultramodern amusement park on 14 acres of plot. The predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent was allotted the project. Predecessor-in- interest of the private respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as security deposit towards allotment of 14 acres of land for construction of an amusement park and Cineplex.

11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent has submitted that, on September 26, 2006 a registered lease deed was executed between SJDA and the private respondent in respect of land mea