SANKAR ACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The Court : Subject to payment of costs assessed at 500 GMs., to be deposited by the appellants with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal, to be earmarked for utilisation by the Mediation and Conciliation Committee, High Court, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the averments made in paragraphs 29 to 33 of the instant application for stay for not filing the appeal within time. However, in the event costs are not paid within ten days from date, the order proposed to be passed herein shall stand automatically vacated.
(2.) The appeal and the application for stay arise out of a judgment and order dated 27th April, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1496 of 2005 ( Anjan Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors .). It appears that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition issued a mandatory direction upon the concerned authorities to mutate the name of the writ petitioner in place and stead of Hemanta Kumar Ghosh within a certain time frame after setting aside the order dated 20th June, 2005 issued by the Joint Secretary, of the Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department, which appears to have been passed pursuant to an earlier order passed by the writ Court on 8th April, 2005, in a previous writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, being W.P. No. 206 of 2005. The appellants herein are the State of West Bengal and its authorities.
(3.) It appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge took into consideration various provisions of a lease deed which, admittedly, was not even executed by and between the parties. The plot in question was allotted by a letter dated 16th November, 1983, in favour of two allottees namely, Gobinda Kumar Ghosh and Hemanta Kumar Ghosh for the purpose of setting up a restaurant in the Salt Lake City area. Certain clauses were attached to the allotment letter. Before the lease was executed, both the original allottees died. Gobinda Kumar Ghosh died intestate on 14th July, 1991, whereas, Hemanta Kumar Ghosh died on 19th September, 2003 leaving behind a Will, which was probated on 27th July, 2004. Upon obtaining the probate in his favour, Anjan Chakraborty - claiming under the Will left behind by Hemanta Kumar Ghosh - approached the writ Court by filing W.P. No. 206 of 2005. An order was passed by the writ Court in that writ petition on 8th April, 2005, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. However while dismissing the writ petition, the following observations were made : "This order shall not be interpreted by the respondents to say that they are not to give the reasoned decision regarding the application for mutation submitted by the petitioner or by the executor of the Will. The application submitted for mutation shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and after giving the authorised representative of the petitioner or to the petitioner himself an opportunity of being heard. The reasoned decision once taken shall be communicated to the petitioner or to the executor as the case may be. It is expected that the decision shall be given by the competent authority as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt a copy of the order." ,;