Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India reminds us with a most ponderous voice, that there is a lot in a name. BnKe Solutions Private Limited, as the writ petitioner used to be called, does not smell as sweet to the respondents particularly the respondent no. 5 by any other name, even if duly changed.
(2.) The writ petitioners challenge Annexure P/20 dated July 7, 2015 by which a demand was made by the respondents no.1 to 5 for deposit of permission fees for transfer/sub-lease of the sub-leasehold of the writ petitioner no.1 and a further memo as in Annexure P/27 dated May 16, 2016 by which the demand was reiterated by the respondents. Both these demands were made because the writ petitioner no.1 duly changed its name from BNKe Solutions Private Limited to the present name of the writ petitioner no.1, Gopi Vallabh Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The representations made by the writ petitioner against the first memo were not disposed of by a reasoned order but the demand was reiterated apparently on legal advice which sought to go into the articles of association of the petitioner no.1 before change of its name and after change of its name, without there being any allegation at any time that there was any change in the composition of the shareholders to use the notion of legal entity to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons.
(3.) The facts of the case as relevant, would show that the writ petitioner used to be called BNKe Solutions Private Limited. It has its registered office at Infinity Tower 1, 4th Floor, Plot A-3, Block GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091. While thus named, it took on sub-lease from the respondent no. 6 around 1.12 acres of land at Block EP and GP in Sector V, Bidhannagar as described more fully in the (first) schedule to the duly registered deed of sub lease dated July 22, 2005 for a premium/salami of Rs.41,44,000/- and ground rent for a period of 60 years, for establishing Information Technology/Information Technology Enabled Services industry thereon. In the deed of sub-lease the definition of the sub-lessee was inclusive and included its successors, administrators and assigns. The land itself had been leased to the respondent no. 6 by the respondent no. 1, by virtue of a deed of lease dated January 19, 1987 which by virtue of Clause 2(vii) allowed such sub-lease. The writ petitioner while still operating under its former name took possession of its subleasehold, paid the full consideration/salami, and duly obtained mutation of its name in the records of the respondent no. 1 in the department concerned, and paid all fees and did all things which the law and the contract between the parties, where one of the parties was "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, required it to do.;