Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of a substituted writ-petitioner and is directed against the order dated December 1, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge thereby dismissing the writ- application filed by the father of the present appellant in which he prayed for setting aside the decision of cancellation of allotment in his favour which was communicated to him by a letter dated April 25, 1991.
(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ-application may be summarised thus : (a) The original writ-petitioner was an allottee of the house (No. 4-type GB-1 at cluster-VII of Purbachal Housing Estate in GA block of Sector-III of Salt Lake) and in the letter of allotment it was mentioned that in default of compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in the brochure concerned, the allotment order would stand automatically cancelled. It was further stipulated that the possession of the house would be given after the registration of the sale-deed. (b) By a letter dated September 14, 1983 the Housing Board directed the original allottee to contact its documentation-cell within thirty days for the purpose of execution of the deed. He was informed that he would be required to make payments mentioned in the letter for that purpose. By a letter dated 3rd April, 1984 the original allottee requested the Board to permit him to transfer the house to another person, on the ground that for financial constraints he was not in a position to purchase it. By a letter dated June 14, 1984 the Board replied back saying that there was no scope of giving him such permission and he was directed to act accordingly. (c) By a letter dated January 8, 1986 an Income-Tax Recovery Officer requested the Board not to refund the sum paid by the allottee towards full price of the house, if the allotment was cancelled. Subsequently, by a letter dated May 19, 1988 the original allottee wanted to know from the Sales Manager of the Board the amount he would be required to deposit for registration and stamp charges. (d) By a letter dated 12th May, 1991 the Board informed the allottee to take step within thirty days for getting "no objection" from the Income-Tax Authority and to complete the transaction after settling the dues of the Income-Tax. It was further stated that if the matter is not settled with the Income-Tax Authority within the aforesaid period of one month, the Board would cancel the allotment. (e) By a letter dated 9th April, 1991 the learned advocate for the allottee requested the Board to defer the execution of the sale deed for eight weeks on the ground that due to cerebral thrombosis, the allottee was advised rest for eight weeks. (f) However, the Board cancelled the allotment by letter dated April 25, 1991. Questioning the order of cancellation of allotment, the original allottee filed the writ-application on July 10, 1991 out of which the present mandamus-appeal arises. (g) The original writ-petitioner having died during the pendency of the writ-application, his son, the present appellant, filed an application for substitution. By order dated September 7, 1999 the application was allowed and the department was directed to take steps for incorporating the necessary amendments. Before the amendments were incorporated, the writ-petition with the original cause-title appeared for hearing as an old matter and by an order dated September 20, 2001 the same was dismissed for default. (h) After the writ-application was dismissed, the Board published advertisement dated January 30, 2004 inviting applications from the persons interested in purchasing the house and subsequently by another order dated February 24, 2004 revised reserved price was mentioned. The added respondents along with others offered Rs. 32.40 lakh and they became successful and a deed was executed and registered in their favour on May 25, 2004 and the possession of the house was given to them by the Board on June 3, 2004. (i) On June 8, 2004 the appellant filed an application for restoration of the writ-application and by order dated 20th January, 2005 the order dated September 20, 2001 was recalled and the writ-application was restored. j) Ultimately, as indicated above, the learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 1st December, 2005 dismissed the writ-application on the ground that the Board being a statutory authority was not supposed to wait for indefinite period for disposing of the property and the mysterious conduct of the allottee led His Lordship to the conclusion that for his own interest he wilfully and deliberately delayed the execution and registration of the deed and accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in cancelling the allotment. His Lordship further directed that the petitioner would be entitled to seek refund of the amount from the Board in accordance with the terms and conditions of the brochure and the letter of allotment and if such refund is sought, the amount payable should be paid by the Board, if there is no legal bar.
(3.) Mr. Bandopadhyay, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the letter dated 25th April, 1991 and has pointed out that the allotment was cancelled for non-compliance of the terms mentioned in the letter dated 12th March, 1991. By referring to the said letter dated 12th March, 1991 issued by the West Bengal Housing Board, Mr. Bandopadhyay points out that by the said letter the Board specifically mentioned that unless "no objection" or clearance certificate from the Income-Tax department was produced within one month from the date of issue of that letter the Board would not permit the allottee to take advantage of the allotment and even in that case, the money would not be refunded. Mr. Bandopadhyay submits that within the time mentioned in the letter his client through a learned advocate prayed for eight weeks' time for the purpose of execution of the sale-deed as the original allottee was then suffering from thrombosis. By pointing the letter dated 25th April, 1991, Mr. Bandopadhyay submits that the allotment was cancelled for non-compliance of the terms of letter dated 12th March, 1991.;