Anil K.Sen, J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the State of West Bengal raises a question as to whether it is incumbent for the said Government to hear the applicant-lessee in rejecting an application for review preferred by such a lessee under the proviso to Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be set out shortly. 1-A. The respondent company is a lessee in respect of a tea garden situate within the Alipurduar Police Station in the District of Jalpaiguri. By an order dated August 1, 1969, the State Government determined the quantum of land required for the garden and as such re-tainable by the respondent and declared an area of 437.30 acres of land held by the respondent to be surplus to the requirement of the tea garden so that the said area was to vest. By a memo dated March 16. 1970, the respondent was informed of the aforesaid order and was directed to deliver possession of the land so declared surplus. On May 4, 1970, the respondent filed an application for revision of the said order dated August 1, 1969, under the provision of the proviso to Section 6 (3) of the said Act. The application so filed by the respondent was entertained by the State Government and the State Government by an order dated June 19, 1970, directed stay of execution of the order of vesting under revision. The State Government in its turn sent the said application to the Jalpaiguri District Tea Estate (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee for its recommendation. The said Committee heard the respondent in support of the application for revision and made its recommendation. On the basis thereof, by an order dated May 2. 1972, the State Government rejected the respondent's application for revision. In so doing, the State Government, however, neither disclosed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee to the respondent nor did it itself hear the respondent. The respondent challenged the validity of the aforesaid order dated May 2, 1972, rejecting the application for revision in a writ petition which succeeded in the trial court, and hence the above appeal.
(2.) The learned Judge, Chittatosh Mookherjee, J., held that both the determination in terms of Section 6 (3) and the revision thereof under the proviso to the said sub-section involved exercise of quasi-judicial powers which called for due compliance with the principles of natural justice. According to the learned Judge though the respondent might have been heard in support of its application for revision by the Jalpaiguri District Tea Estate (Resumption of Land) Advisory Committee set up by the State Government administratively it was incumbent on the part of the State Government to disclose its recommendation to the respondent and itself hear the respondent before it could reject the same. That admittedly not having been done, the State Government acted clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice which renders the impugned order liable to be set aside. In that view, the learned Judge set aside the impugned order dated May 2, 1972, whereby the State Government had rejected the respondent's application for revision ami directed re-hearing of the said application. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the State Government has preferred this appeal.
(3.) Mr. P. K. Sengupta, the learned Government Pleader appearing in support of this appeal has raised a solitary point to the effect that when the State Government thought it fit not to revise the order earlier made under Section 6 (3) it was not necessary for the State Government to hear the respondent in support of their application for revision. According to Mr. Sengupta, the statute had provided no right of revision to the respondent, the particular provision in the proviso to Section 6 (3) is an enabling provision which vests powers in the State Government to revise an earlier order made under Section 6 (3) when it thinks fit to do so and the said provision further provides that it is only where the State Government proposes to revise the earlier order it has to hear the lessee but not when the State Government refuses to revise because of the fact that the State Government thinks it to be not a fit case for revision. Hence, according to Mr. Sengupta, the learned Judge in the trial Court was in error in holding that failure on the part of the State Government to hear the respondent prior to rejecting their application for revision had vitiated the order dated May 2, 1972, refusing to revise the earlier order made under Section 6 (3).;