Amitava Lala, J - (1.) In view of the earlier directions two writ petitions being W.P. No. 644 of 2000 and W.P. No. 733 of 2000 are appearing in the list for analogous hearing.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended before this Court that in view of the communication of the order by the Joint Secretary under Memo No. 258/1 (2)-HI dated 2.3.2000 the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 644 of 2000 virtually become infructuous as all the questions pertaining therein merged with the subsequent writ petition. Therefore no order is needed to be passed in respect of W.P. No. 644 of 2000. Accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
(3.) So far the W.P. No. 733 of 2000 is concerned an interesting question arose out of the same. A lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the State on 18th March 1964. Clause 6 of the Lease Deed is as follows : "6. Not to assign underset or part with the possession of the demised premises or any parts thereof so long as the full amount of the salami is not paid and after payment of the full amount of the salami not to assign the demised premises or any part thereof without first obtaining the written consent of the Lessor such consent however not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable and responsible person." ;