IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi MAT 620 of 2024 With IA NO: CAN/2/2024 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

VS MUGHBERIA GANGADHAR TRUST ESTATE For the Appellants :Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Advocate Mr. Subir Pal, Advocate Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Advocate Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Advocate Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, Advocate Heard and judgment on: June 17, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

2. Appeal is at the behest of the State and its functionaries and directed against a judgment and order dated August 25, 2023 passed in WPA

12109 of 2022.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed release and making over possession of the property in question in favour of the writ petitioner in terms of the agreement, upon execution of a formal document to that effect, within four weeks from the date of the order.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, a registered agreement was entered into between the State of West Bengal and a Trust. He refers to the various relevant Clauses of the agreement. He submits that, there is no failure on the part of the State in taking steps in terms of the agreement. In any event, he submits that, there are reciprocal obligations to be performed and that, the appellants cannot be said to be guilty of not performing their obligation under the agreement.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, the agreement does not contemplate release of the property in question as contended on behalf of the writ petitioner. He submits that, the so-called letter of a Minister-in-Charge cannot be construed to be a release within the meaning of the terms and conditions of the agreement. He questions the validity of such letter issued by the Minister. Moreover, according to him, the so-called letter of release is not in terms with the agreement.

6. Relying upon FMA 861 of 2019 [Dhaspara SKUS Ltd. & Anr. Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.] dated March 23, 2022; MAT 1412 of 2023 [The Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering and Technology & Ors. vs. M/s. Malda Construction Company & Ors.} dated May 2, 2024 and FMA 999 of 2021 [West Bengal State Fishermen’s Co-Operative Federation Limited (Benfish)]dated July 12, 2024, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, a writ is not maintainable in a contractual field particularly when, the contract is not a statutory one.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that there are disputed questions of facts involved. He contends that, there was a civil suit filed by the trusties of the Trust against the State of West Bengal in a civil Court at Puri relating to the property concerned and that, in view of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, no civil suit was filed by the trustees as claimed. He refers to the affidavit filed in pursuance of the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench. He submits that, the appellants did not act in terms of the registered agreement. The Minister-in-Charge agreed for relinquishment. He submits that the impugned judgment and order should not be interfered with.

9. Genesis of the appeal is a registered agreement dated August 12, 1993 entered into between a Trust and the State of West Bengal.

10. Relevant portions of the registered agreement dated August 12, 1993 are as follows :-

“(1) That the property described in the Schedule below known as “Gangadhar Nilay Panthasala” Puri is transferred and placed under the management and control of the second party with effect from this day permanently until the second Party surrenders and relinquishes it to the First Party.

(2) The Youth Hostel to be constructed and used by the Sport’s & Youth Service