Tapen Sen, J.-

Heard r. P.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.N. Sahadeo assisted by Mrs. J. Majumdar for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order/letter dated 15.9.1992 as contained at Annexure 8, by reason whereof the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.3) has directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of, Rs. 1,72,500/- as Salami and has enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. 8,625/- per annum, treating the petitioner's lease to be a commercial lease.

3. The short facts which are necessary to be stated in this case, are that the Ministry of Industry, Government of India and the Industrial Financial Corporation of India jointly invited/requested the Asahi Glass Company Ltd. of Japan to set up an industrial venture by purchasing the assets of Sodepur Glass Company which was then under liquidation with the Industrial Financial Corporation of India. Subsequently, the Asahi Glass Company Ltd. invested a huge capital and remodeled the entire infrastructure and the setup and subsequently the petitioner company, namely, the Indo Asahi Glass Company Ltd. came into existence.

4. The petitioner has further stated that taking into consideration, the necessity of continuous supply of water, a registered indenture of lease was executed between the State Government and petitioner company on or about 30.6.1961, whereby and whereunder an area comprising of 6.90 acres in different plots and in different villages were demised in favour of the petitioner-company for the purposes of construction of a dam for supply of water to the petitioner.

5. The aforementioned period of lease was to expire on 30.1.1991, as a result whereof by reason of the letter dated 29.12.1990 as contained at Annexure 2 to the writ application, the petitioner exercised its option for renewal for a further period of 30 (thirty) years.

6. Thereafter the renewal application moved from one table to the other and petitioner was called upon to submit the receipts showing up-to-date payment of rent and thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh by letter dated 23.8.1991 informed the petitioner that renewal application had been accepted on payment of Rs. 690/- as rent to be paid annually. In support of the aforesaid contention the petitioner has annexed Annexure 4. The petitioner was not only informed about the aforesaid fixation of Rs. 690/- as annual rent but was also called upon to present its draft lease for execution and for completion of other formalities.

7. The initial lease having been granted at the rate of Rs. 17.83 per annum and salami at the rate of Rs. 178.28, the petitioner, accordingly, requested that the renewal has to be done in terms of the renewal clause, i.e. at a rate not exceeding twice the rent. Accordingly, the petitioner requested that in terms of this clause, rent should not exceed Rs. 35.66 per annum. The petitioner has stated that perhaps, it was on account of aforementioned letter that the respondent NO.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh) took exception to the aforesaid letter and all of a sudden the petitioners were asked to go to the Commissioner, as according to them no revision could be made in the matter relating to the decision, which had already been taken in relation to renewal in the manner indicated above, i.e. at the rate of RS.690/-.The petitioner has stated that they approached the Commissioner by their letter dated 28.12.1991, but in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, all of a sudden directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,72,500/- as salami and informed that the rental of the renewal shall be at the rate of Rs. 8,625/- per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this writ application and one of the grounds canvassed by the writ petitioner is that such an order could not have been passed inasmuch as it is totally unilateral and it is contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease. They have also stated that they had