Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner is questioning the decision of the corporation dated March 29th, 2006 whereby his request for carrying on business from stall No. E-5 in Gariahat market of the corporation had been turned down by the Mayor.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that as the original permit holder he, and not his daughter-in-law (the seventh respondent), is entitled to run business from the stall in question. His further case is that he became the beneficiary in terms of a registered family settlement dated September 26th, 1977. The case of the corporation, as stated in its opposition dated November 13th, 2006, is that the petitioner, of his own accord, applied to the corporation on December 7th, 1985 for permission to convey all right, title and interest in the stall to his third son. Sajal, the deceased husband of the seventh respondent (Krishna), and that on the basis of that application on March 31st, 1986 the Mayor-in-Council, after obtaining an indemnity bond dated December 23rd, 1985 from Sajal, allotted the stall to him. Its further case is that while on Sajal's death Krishna became entitled to apply for recording her name, the petitioner did not acquire any right to reopen the matter.
(3.) Counsel for the parties inform me that the petitioner has already instituted a suit before the civil court, and that in that suit Krishna is a party, though corporation is not a paltry. Be that as it may, on the facts. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the corporation. From the documents produced with the opposition of the corporation it is apparent that Sajal's name was recorded as the permit holder in terms of decision of the Mayor-in-Council dated March 31st, 1986, and that decision was taken on the basis of the petitioner's application dated December 7th, 1985, genuineness whereof has been sought to be questioned by counsel for the petitioner today. What counsel has suggested is that the corporation perhaps fabricated the documents stated to be application Submitted by the petitioner on December 7th, 1985 and the indemnity bond dated December 23rd, 1985 submitted by Sajal. There is absolutely no reason to entertain such a plea at this distance of time, when there is nothing to show that Sajal, during his life time, was not operating his business from the stall. He died only on December 7th 2005. As his wife Krishna was lawfully entitled to request the corporation to mutate the records incorporating her name as the permit holder of the stall. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for costs in it. The application (CAN 6816 of 2006) taken out by the petitioner for appropriate order shall be deemed to be disposed of without any order for costs. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for, within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerted. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;