WP(C) 833/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Handique, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. The learned State Counsel submits that inspite of repeated endeavours he has not been posted with necessary instructions. Having regard to the grievance made and the relief prayed for, I am not inclined to grant further time to the respondents. The petition is, ther efore, disposed of at the admission stage. The facts in brief necessary for the decision proposed are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of growing, manu facturing and marketing tea in the name and style of Beheating Tea Estate. It ha d obtained financial assistance of Rs. 1.20 crore (approximately) from the India n Overseas Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Kolkata. Following an agreement between the petitioner and the Bank evolving a method for liquidation of the outstanding du es in a phased manner, the Bank issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner to sell 114 Bighas 3 Kathas 7 Lechas of its land lying mortgaged with it (petitioner) to secure the loan. Pursuant thereto, in the month of Marc h, 2006, the petitioner took necessary steps for selling 18 Bighas 3 Kathas 7 Le chas thereof. The transaction could materialize. From the sale proceeds of the s aid land, the outstanding dues of the petitioner were liquidated to some extent. With the same end in view, the petitioner decided to sell further 23 Bighas 3 K athas 4 Lechas of land. Accordingly it submitted a representation on 12/10/2003 before the appropriate authorities of the State Government seeking necessary per mission to effectuate the proposed sale. A report thereon was called for and eve ntually the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by his communication dated 19/1/2 006 submitted the same. By the impugned order dated 15/2/2007, the permission ha s been declined on the ground that the report submitted was not convincing. Mr. Dutta with reference to the letter dated 31/7/1998 of the Co mmissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (Settlement) Depart ment, containing the norms to be complied with for being entitled to the permiss ion for sale of grant/tea periodic patta land has submitted that as the petition er’s land proposed to be sold meets the same, the impugned decision is per se il legal and arbitrary and is liable to be adjudged null and void. As the refusal t o grant permission to the petitioner to sell its land is without any justificati on whatsoever, according to him, it is a fit case where a writ of mandamus ought to be issued directing the respondent authorities to sanction the same. The learned State Counsel submitted that he is without instructi ons. Upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and on a consi deration of the pleaded facts and the documents annexed to the petition more par ticularly the letter dated 31/7/1999 referred to above, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the petition is closed with the following dir ections:- (a) The Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, would again examine th e petitioner’s proposal for the sale of 23 Bighas 3 Kathas 4 Lechas of the petitioner’s land under Grant No. 13/176 O.R.R. (Old) of Mankatta Khanik ar Mouza, village Dainijan, District-Dibrugarh, in terms of the crit eria contained in the letter dated 31/7/1998 and submit a report to the P rincipal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Department, Guwahat i, by 31/3/2007. The outer limit of time as above is in view of the i nsistence on the part of the Bank in this regard. (b) On receipt of such report, the Principal Secretary to the G overnment of Assam, would take an appropriate decision on the issue. Needless to say, any decision to be taken has to be in strict adherence to the guide lines in the letter dated 31/7/1998 referred to above. As the petition er is hard pressed for liquidating its outstanding dues and the Bank has fi xed time therefor within 31/3/2007, the process as indicated hereinabove should be completed by then. (c) The petitioner would deposit the sale proceeds with the Bank in the relevant account without delay. No costs.