- (1.) THIS mandamus-appeal is at the instance of a third party in a writ-application and is directed against order dated March 5, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of a writ-application filed by the private respondent by setting aside the order passed by the Chairman of the Kolkata Port Trust which was impugned in the writ-application with the direction to the Port Trust Authority to rehear and dispose of the representation of the writ-petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the order. Subsequently, by an order dated march 28, 2007, on an application of the Chairman and the Land Manager of the Kolkata Port Trust, who were the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 respectively, the earlier order dated March, 5, 2008 was modified by specifically directing the Chairman of the Kolkata Port Trust (instead of Port Trust Authority) to dispose of the representation of the writ-petitioner as indicated earlier.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the writ-application out of which the present appeal arises may be summed up thus :- a) On 1 st May, 1978, the Kolkata Port Trust Authority granted lease of land measuring 3,092. 09 sq. meter to one Kanji Panchanand private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Kanji) for a term of 10 years at the monthly rental of Rs. 1,855. 25p. Although the lease expired on April 30, 1990, the Kanji did not deliver back possession as a result, the Port Trust Authority issued a notice dated July 1,1990 asking the Kanji to vacate the land. b) In spite of such notice, the Kanji having failed to deliver possession in favour of the lessor, the Port Trust Authority on 17th May, 1998 initiated proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Estate Officer. The estate Officer by his order dated May 25, 2000 passed an order of eviction against the Kanji. c) Being dissatisfied with the order of eviction, the Kanji preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge but such appeal was dismissed on May 15, 2002. A revisional application filed by the kanji before this Court was also dismissed on July 15, 2002 and consequently, the Port Trust Authority filed an application for execution and appointment of an authorised officer in terms of section 5 (2) of the Act on December 16, 2006. d) At this stage, one Manish Tiwari filed a suit being Title Suit. No. 989 of 2003 in the City Civil Court of Calcutta and obtained an order of injunction restraining the Port Trust Authority from taking possession of the leasehold land of the Kanji. Ultimately, such order of injunction was vacated on June 28, 2006 and the Port trust Authority in execution obtained possession of the land from the Kanji on October 19,2006 and seized some timbers and casing pipes, which were lying on the leasehold land at the time of taking delivery of possession. e) The writ-petitioners claimed to be the owners of those casing pipes and their case was that they imported the pipes on October 13,2006 for the purpose of sending those to Jorhat, Assam, and accordingly, a transporter was engaged for such transportation who unloaded the containers and dumped 300 pieces of casing pipes on a vacant land with the idea to gradually transport those pipes subject to the availability of trailers and in fact, out of 300 casing pipes, already 153 were transhipped and the balance 147 were lying on the open ground on the date of execution of the order of eviction against the Kanji. f) In the past, the said transporter, on behalf of the writ-petitioner, filed another writ-application before this Court complaining the seizure of the casing pipes by the Port Trust Authority on the ground that those casing pipes had no connection with the former tenant of the Port Trust, and as such, those should be released immediately. Dipankar Datta, J. disposed of such writ-application by directing the writ-petitioner to make a representation before the Port Trust Authority within a specified time with a direction to the Chairman, Kolkata Port Trust, to dispose of such representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner. g) Pursuant to the order passed by Datta, J. , the Chairman, Kolkata port Trust by order dated February 16, 2007 disposed of the representation by holding that the dues of the Kolkata Port Trust against the Kanji, its previous tenant, amounted to Rs. 76,36,783. 11 p. without interest, and as such, in view of pendency of the proceedings for liquidation of dues before the Estate Officer under the provision of the Act, those goods could not be released as those were found to be lying on the leasehold property at the time of taking delivery of possession through execution. h) Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Chairman of the Kolkata Port Trust, the writ-petitioner filed a fresh writapplication before this Court and as pointed out earlier, Jyotirmoy bhattacharya, J. disposed of such application by directing the chairman of the Port Trust to rehear the representation in the light of the observations made by His Lordship in the body of the order. His Lordship specifically held that unless it was established that there was co-relation between the writ-petitioner and the erstwhile tenant, the goods of the writ-petitioner could not be sold for realisation of the dues of the previous tenant.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied, the Board of Trustees of the Kolkata Port Trust who were not parties to the writ-application have come up with this appeal with leave to file the same.;