S.Chatterji, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by Travel Corporation of (India) Private Limited, the owner of Andaman Beach Resort at Corbyn's Cove, Port Blair, Andamans praying for a Writ of Mandamus to quash, rescind and cancel the orders dated 15th of April, 1988 of Sub-divisional Officer of Port Blair, Andaman passed in R.C. Case No. 5 of 1988, in Revenue Appeal No. 59 of 1988 and for consequential reliefs as fully stated in the writ petition itself. It is stated in details that the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of Travel Trade, Hotel Operation and the expansion of Tourist Traffic in India by establishing Tourist Resorts in different parts of India. The petitioner constructed a spacious beach resort and it has been running a hotel at under the name and style of "Corbyn's Cove". For the purpose of expansion of the said Tourist Resort, the petitioner is alleged to have applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Port Blair, Andamans for necessary permission to convert an area 850 square metres of agricultural land belonging to the Company with a view to raise construction thereupon, In view of the urgency of the project, the petitioner allegedly obtained sanction of the plan on the 1st of December, 1986 from the Municipal Board and took up construction in August, 1987 on the clear assurance of the once of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 viz. The Deputy Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman that necessary permission for conversion would be granted soon. The sanction which was granted had to expire on December 1987 by which time the main structure extention was complete. The completion certificate was issued on 29th December, 1987 by the Municipal Board and the plan was re-validated on the same date for a further period of one year to enable the petitioner to complete the building. It is placed on record that on or about 8th of February, 1988 when the petitioner was really waiting for the necessary permission for conversion from the respondent No. 5, it was taken by surprise by receiving a notice to show cause as to why action would not be taken for conversion of 850 square metres of their land for commercial purpose for which no permission of the competent authority was obtained. A reply was given and the petitioner further requested for grant of the necessary sanction as prayed earlier. The respondent No. 5 however, by Order dated 15th of April, 1988 directed the eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid land in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Since, no stay was granted by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ application and obtained necessary orders of status quo. After hearing the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans remanded the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer calling for a fresh decision. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated 27th June, 1988, the petitioner has come to this Court again.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has not followed the direction of this Court made in an earlier writ petitions on 26th April, 1988 to dispose the appeal with all reasons. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have dealt with all the points raised by the petitioner against the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Andamans directing the eviction of the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Joyanta Mitra and with Ranjan Dutt appearing for the writ petitioner have strongly argued that the Deputy Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Sub-Divisional Officer having considered held against the petitioner, there will be no useful purpose to send the case back on remand and instead the case of merit ought to have considered by the Deputy Commissioner himself for effective adjudication. Since the Sub-Divisional Officer, Andamans refused to grant the stay of the order of eviction to enable the petitioner to test his decision in appeal, the order of remand will not serve any performance except for delaying the case to the prejudice of the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner Company is alleged to have made huge investment and any delay is likely to cause serious inconvenience and irreparable injury.;