Shri.Nikhil Halder v. The Chief Secretary And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIBHAS RANJAN DE MA/1/2025 SHRI NIKHIL HALDER ... APPELLANT VS.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the appellant : Mr. KMB Jayapal For the respondents : Ms. Babita Das Reserved on : February 18, 2025 Judgment on : February 28, 2025 ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

At the outset, reference may be drawn to the order dated February 25, 2025 passed in MA/2/2025.

In RE : MA/1/2025 1.

This is an intra-court mandamus appeal from the impugned judgment and order dated December 11, 2024 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPA/356/2024.

Facts:- 2.

This is the third round of writ litigation.

3.

The appellant as an encroacher of a land being Survey No. 14 measuring about 0.83 hectare at village Kamalapur under Mayabunder Tehsil (for short, the said land) claimed the settlement of land in his favour by way of tenancy in terms of a scheme for disposal of government land in revenue villages dated August 17, 1987, Annexure R-2 at page 69 to the paper book. 4.

Since the claim of the appellant was not acceded upon by the respondent authority, the appellant filed the first writ petition C.O. 51(W) of 1998. By an order dated July 20, 1998 at page 27 to the paper book, a Coordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the grievance of the appellant by treating the writ petition as representation in the manner and mode as directed therein.

5.

Pursuant to and in terms of the said directions by its reasoned order dated February 3, 1999, the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans recommended the case of the appellant for regularization under Pre78 category before the Administration for approval of competent authority, Annexure P-3 at page 30 to the paper book. 6.

Since no step was taken following the recommendation dated February 3, 1999, the appellant submitted a representation through its advocate's letter dated October 28, 2020, Annexure P-4 at page 41 to the paper book. Since no step was taken for considering the said representation, the appellant filed the second writ petition being

annexure R-5 at page 45 to the paper book. The said second writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench by its order dated September 20, 2022, Annexure P-5 at page 45 to the paper book. The relevant observation and direction of the Coordinate Bench is quoted below:- " I do not see any justification to keep this Writ Petition pending. Let respondent no. 3 consider the representation dated October 28, 2020 appearing at page 33 of the Writ Petition (Annexure P4) within a period of eight weeks from date in accordance with law. If necessary, the said respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The reasoned decision arrived at by the said authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Since no affidavit-inopposition has been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the Wirt Petition are deemed to be denied by them. WPA 200 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of."

7.

Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022, the respondent No. 4 passed its reasoned order dated March 19, 2024, Annexure P-6 at page 47 to the paper book when the respondent No. 4 has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground mentioned therein. 8.

Being aggrieved by the said impugned reasoned order dated March 19, 2024 passed by the respondent No. 4, the appellant filed the third writ petition WPA/356/2024, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:- "(i) A writ and/or Writ in the nature of Mandamus Quashing and/or cancelling and/or setting aside and/or annulling the Impugned order dated 19th of March, 2024 Vide F.A. No. 4-84(Vol-VI)DC(N&MA)/2024/595 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District of North and Middle Andaman.

(ii) A Writ and/or Writs do issue in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent Authorities more particularly respondent no. 2 and 3 to take effective and necessary steps immediately to issue license in respect of subject land in Survey No. 14, measuring area 0.83 Hectares situated at Village Kamalapur Village Under Mayabunder Tehsil, North and Middle Andaman;

(iii) Interim order restraining the respondents authorities from taking any steps whatsoever to evict and dispossess the writ petitioner from license in respect of subject land in Survey No. 14, measuring area 0.83 Hectares situated at Village Kamalapur Village Under Mayabunder Tehsil, North and Middle Andaman till disposal of writ petition. (iv) Writ of Certiorari be issued Commanding the Respondent Authorities and each one of them to present the records in the present proceeding for giving conscionable Justice to the present petition; (v) Cost the present application;

(vi) To pass Such Other or further order or Orders, direction or Direction do issue as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

9.

By the impugned order dated December 11, 2024 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench, the said third writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Hence, the instant mandamus appeal. Submissions:- 10.

Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has referred to the various provisions from the scheme for disposal of government lands in the revenue villages dated August 17, 1987 (for short, the said scheme). Referring to Sub-Clauses (a) to (d) to Clause 4 of the scheme, he submits that the decision of the government was to be implemented in the manner as stated therein. The Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District shall make available to the Tehsildars and Assistant Commissioners a list of persons who

were found by the High Power Committee to be in unauthorized occupation of government land in various revenue villages from a date prior to December 31, 1978. The Tehsildar then shall ascertain by local authority as to whether the persons so listed still continue to occupy government land in survey villages in the Tehsil and if so call such persons in such village to assemble on a date and time to be notified and to indicate the exact limits of the lands which they would like to be settled with them. The Tehsildar should get the land so indicated by them measured out accurately on the spot and get a suitable proposal made for making amendments in the field map of the village. The Tehsildar then shall proceed to record on oath the statement of each person claiming relief under the scheme to the effect mentioned in the said scheme.

11.

Referring to Clause (g) to (h) to Clause 4 from the said scheme, Mr. KMB Jayapal submits that the Deputy Commissioner shall submit the case to the Administration for issuance of suitable orders under section 146 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short, the Andaman Regulation) in respect of such encroachments which are eligible to be regularized in accordance with the said scheme. He further submits that the orders of the Administration in case of proposal concerning such revenue village shall thereafter be communicated to the Tehsildar concerned through the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner for issue of necessary

licences and for correction of land records and assessment and recovery of land revenue.

12.

Mr. Jayapal then refer to section 146 from the Andaman Regulation and submits that the said provision of the regulation deals with power to make grants and licences. He submits that the Chief Commissioner then may grant licence in writing to any person to occupy and land to such extend and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

13.

Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999 submits that upon a detail fact finding enquiry the appellant was found to be an encroacher in respect of the said land and suggested for the recommendation to be made before the Administration for regularization of the encroached land under Pre-1978 category to the extent of occupation mentioned therein. He submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman dated February 3, 1999 was not under challenge at any point of time. He submits that after the said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman the same ought to have been placed before the appropriate authority of the Administration for regularization of land in favour of the appellant. Order shows that the appellant is a Pre-1978 occupier of the said land.

14.

Mr. Jayapal then refers to the provisions under Article 239 of the Constitution of India and submits that Andaman being an Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. For territory of Andaman the President has appointed the Lieutenant Governor to act as the administrator, therefore the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman dated February 3, 1999 ought to have been placed before the Lieutenant Governor as the administrator of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to take a decision for making a recommendation in favour of the appellant.

15.

Referring to the order impugned in the third writ petition in connection whereof the instant appeal arose, learned counsel submits that the scope of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022 was limited to the extent of considering the representation of the appellant dated October 28, 2020. Referring to the said representation, he submits that the same clearly speaks for the demand of the appellant for issuance of licence in respect of the said land in his favour on the basis of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman dated February 3, 1999 and not beyond that, whereas the respondent No. 4 while considering the said representation of the appellant dated October 28, 2020 has reopened the entire issue in its impugned order dated March 19, 2024 and rejected the claim of the appellant by arriving at a finding which is

not only contrary to the finding of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman dated February 3, 1999 which has already attained finality but also proceeded on the grounds which are not tenable in law. The principal ground for rejection under the said impugned decision dated March 19, 2024 was that the appellant Nikhil Halder being the son of Agni Halder, since deceased is a joint owner of another plot of land at Basantipur village and therefore the appellant was held to be disqualified for the settlement of said land at Kamalapur village. The second reason of rejection was that the High Power Committee had not recommended the case of the appellant or his deceased father Agni Halder.

16.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that these grounds were not taken when the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman on February 3, 1999.

17.

Referring to the gazette notification dated April 12, 2016 and September 28, 1993 which are appended to the said Andaman Regulation, Mr. Jayapal submits that the Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands is the Administrator of the said territory.

18.

Per contra, Ms. Babita Das, learned counsel appearing for the Administration of the Islands being the respondents herein refers to the order impugned dated March 19, 2024, Annexure P-6 at page 47 to the paper book and submits that the same was passed pursuant to

the direction of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022 passed in the second writ petition. Referring to the said order of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022, she submits that following the direction, the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the available land records passed the said order dated March 19, 2024 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The said order passed by the respondent No. 3 would clearly demonstrate that upon considering all the land records the order was passed. 19.

She submits that the previous order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans was passed way back on February 3, 1999 and the appellant have not taken any step for settlement of land in its favour, till the time the representation was made dated October 28, 2020. The appellant allowed about 21-22 years to be passed in the meantime.

20.

Referring to the Tehsildar's report dated August 21, 2023 at page 66 to the paper book, she submits that the Tehsildar upon perusal of the existing land records came to a specific finding that the land at Basantipur village was found to be recorded in the joint names of Dulal, Nirmal and Nikhil Halder all being sons of Agni Halder, since deceased. Thus, the Tehsildar came to a finding that the appellant is not a landless person when the scheme was in force and as such his claim for regularization of land was not considered under the terms of the said scheme. She further has relied upon the finding of the Tehsildar that the appellant failed to submit any

documentary proof that the request for regularization of his encroachment was ever recommended by the High Power Committee ( for short, HPC) which was constituted under the encroachment regularization scheme in the year 1988. The further finding of the Tehsildar was upon verification of case file in respect of Kamalapur Village initiated during 1987 for regularization of land, that no case was recommended by the HPC. So the finding of the Tehsildar was that HPC never recommended the case of the appellant or his father Agni Halder since deceased. Accordingly the specific finding of the Tehsildar was that the claim of the appellant was without any merit.

21.

Referring to Sub-Clauses (b), (c) and (d) to Clause 4 of the said scheme, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said report of the Tehsildar dated August 21, 2023 at page 66 to the paper book is of extreme importance, on the basis whereof the claim of the appellant was rejected. She submits that under the said scheme, who already has a property in his own name is not eligible to receive any further property even if the same being under his /her encroachment.

22.

Ms.

Babita Das, learned counsel appearing for the Administration then refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Administration at page 52 to the paper book and referring to page 85 to the paper book she submits that by an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in other writ petitions with regard to similar claims,

writ petitions were dismissed. Therefore, the appellant being similarly placed with those writ petitioners, his claim has also been rightly dismissed.

23.

Learned counsel for the Administration has further submitted that under said scheme once the appellant had a property in his/her name, the appellant is not eligible to receive his claim for the second property.

24.

In the light of the above submissions, learned counsel for the Administration Ms. Babita Das submits that this appeal is devoid of any merit and should be dismissed and impugned order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench dated December 11, 2024 should not be interfered.

Decision 25.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of materials on record including the affidavits filed in the writ petition, it appears to this Court that the said first order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999 have not been challenged in any manner by the Administration. 26.

On a careful reading of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999, it further appears that the same was passed upon a detailed fact finding enquiry being made on the relevant land records. The said order dated February 3, 1999 further depicts that a detailed report was called for from the

Tehsildar. Tehsildar has submitted the report. Upon considering the said report which included the status of encroachment of the appellant on the government land with reference to the probable date of encroachment, the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The relevant finding in respect of the claim of the appellant from the said dated February 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans is extracted below:- "2. Shri Nikhil Halder Petitioner No. 2.

The report of the Tehsildar, Mayabunder and the supporting documents furnished by Tehsildar and the petitioner has been perused which reveals that Late Agni Halder father of the petitioner had encroached upon an area measuring 0.83 hects of Govt. land in Sy. No. 14 of Kamalapur village in the year 1975 and the case was instituted in the Court of Tehsildar and he was ordered to be ejected from the land vide Tehsildar's R.C. NO. 20/75 vide his order dated25.05.78 but the writ petitioner continued to be in possession of the above land till his death in 1984. His son i.e. the writ petitioner No.

2 inherited the encroached land and is still in active possession of this land, Under the scheme of regularisation of Pre 78 encroachment I find that it is a fit case to be referred to the competent authority for reglarisation this land under the said scheme. XXX After taking into consideration the merit of claims made by the Writ Petitioners and on the basis of the records and report of the Tehsildar, Mayabunder the cases of the Writ Petitioners namely Shri Nikhil Halder, Shri Dinabhandu Roy, Shri Bhandana Orang, Shri Jagat Kumar, Shri A. Karupaiaya, Smti Devmati Singh and Smti MariyamMinj qualify for being recommended to Administration for regularisation of encroachment to the extent mentioned against every one. No relief can be granted to Smti Suniti Halder, the Petitioner No.

occupied/encroached Govt. land on a date prior of 31.12.1978.

To sum up recommendation for regularisation under Pre78 category shall be made to the Administration for approval of Competent Authority for the following persons to the extent of land as shown against their name. Sl.

No Name Sy.No.

Area Village 1.

Shri Nikhil Halder 0.83 hects Kamalapur 2.

Shri Dinabhandu Roy 109/p 1.00 hects Govindapur 132/p 3.

Shri Bhandana Orang 13/p 0.05 hects Proffulaya Nagar 4.

Shri Jagat Kumar 132/p 0.40 hects Govindapur 5.

Shri A. Karupaiya 132/p 0.20 hecs Govindapur 6.

Smti Devmai Singh 91/1 (p) 0.05 hects Basantipur 7.

Smti. Mariyam Minj 13/p 0.80 hects Proffulaya Nagar Given under my hand and seal of the Court today the 3rd day of February, 1999."

27.

Since the above finding of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans have never been challenged, the same has attained its finality.

28.

During the period between February 3, 1999 and October 28, 2020, though it was the obligation cast upon the Administration of the Islands and its authorities to give an immediate effect to the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999, but since the Administration has failed to discharge their duties and obligation not to take any step for reference of the case of the appellant before the competent authority, the appellant submitted

his representation dated October 28, 2020 at page 41 to the paper book. The specific demand of the appellant before the Administration was to take necessary and consequential steps on the basis of the said order dated February 3, 1999.

Meanwhile, several representations were submitted by the appellant from time to time. The claim of the appellant enumerated in the said representation dated October 28, 2020 is quoted below:- "In the above mentioned facts and circumstances I on behalf of my clients send this legal notice/demand notice for issue license in respect of the said landed properties in favour of my client on basis of the Honourable High Court order and on the basis of the order dated 3rd February 1999 from your good office as soon as possible, failing which I have instructions from my clients to take legal action against you for necessary relief of my clients for all its consequences you are fully responsible including all costs."

29.

Since no step was taken, order was passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench on September 20, 2022 with the observation and direction already quoted hereinabove.

30.

From the observation and direction of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the representation dated October 28, 2020 and not to travel beyond that. The said order of the Coordinate Bench was also not challenged. Therefore, it was the obligation and duty of the respondent No. 3 only to consider the representation dated October 28, 2020 and dispose of the claim of the appellant made therein and not to travel beyond that. From the order dated March 19, 2024

passed by the respondent No.3 pursuant to the direction of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022, it appears that the respondent No. 3 on its own motion had reopened the entire issue and revisited the same which had achieved its finality under the said order dated February 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans.

31.

An executive order to lose its effect, either has to be set aside and quashed by a competent forum of law or by operation of law. An executive order unless is set aside or quashed remains in its full force and the direction made thereunder stands binding upon the authority. In the facts of the instant case, the order dated March 19, 2024 was passed by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to the said direction of the Coordinate Bench dated September 20, 2022 where the respondent No. 3 was directed only to the extent to consider the representation of the appellant dated October 28, 2020 and not beyond that. While considering, the respondent No. 3 therefore had no authority to reopen and revisit the issue. 32.

Inasmuch as, all the relevant materials on the basis whereof the claim of the appellant was directed to be considered by an order dated July 20, 1998 passed by a Coordinate Bench in the first writ petition at page 27 to the paper book were all of contemporaneous times. When the said first order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999 was passed pursuant to the direction of the said Coordinate Bench dated July 20, 1998, all the

relevant contemporaneous materials and records were considered and/or deemed to have been considered and only then the order was passed on February 3, 1999. The same has never been challenged. There could not have been and/or cannot be any subsequent development with regard to records and materials in relation with the claim of the appellant on which the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman dated February 3, 1999 could be revisited or the issue could be and can be reopened suo moto by the respondent No. 3.

33.

The order dated February 3, 1999 since has achieved its finality, remains with its full force and effect and is binding upon the Administration of the Islands. The said order dated February 3, 1999 has created a valuable right in favour of the appellant for referring his case for regularization of encroached land before the Administrator of the territory for his consideration on the basis of the same.

34.

Sub-Clause (a) to Clause 4 of the said scheme of 1987 provides that the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District shall make available to the Tehsildars and Assistant Commissioners a list of persons who were found by the High Power Committee to be in unauthorized occupation of government land in various revenue villages from a date prior to December 31, 1978. Sub-Clause (b) to Clause 4 of the 1987 scheme provides that the Tehsildar then shall ascertain by local enquiry as to whether the persons so listed still

continue to occupy government land in survey villages in the Tehsil and if so call such persons in such village to assemble on a date and time to be notified and to indicate the exact limits of the lands which they would like to be settled with them. Sub-Clause (c) to Clause 4 of the said scheme provides that the Tehsildar should get the land so indicated by them measured out accurately on the spot and get a suitable proposal made for making amendments in the field map of the village.

35.

From the said order dated February 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans, as already discussed above, it would be evident that necessary report was called for from the Tehsildar and then upon perusal of the report submitted by the Tehsildar, the claim of the appellant was allowed with a detailed finding on facts on the basis of the contemporaneous record. 36.

Thus, the respondent No. 3 at this belated stage ought not to have reopened the issue by directing the Tehsildar to submit a fresh report in 2023 when the issue had achieved its finality way back in 1999 and passed the impugned order dated March 19, 2024 by revisiting the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999. In any event, the respondent No. 3 was also not authorized to do so neither was empowered under the said order of the Coordinate bench dated September 20, 2022. Thus, the respondent No. 3 in passing the said order dated March 19, 2024 had acted only without and in excess of its jurisdiction.

37.

Inasmuch as, the report of the Tehsildar dated August 21, 2023 at page 66 to the paper book was on the basis of the same contemporaneous material which were in existence in 1999 and on the basis whereof the said order was passed on February 3, 1999 by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans which has already attained its finality in 1999. Therefore, no credence and cognizance can be placed on the report of the Tehsildar dated August 21, 2023. 38.

Further, on a careful reading of the said scheme of 1987, it appears to this Court that, there has been no absolute bar laid down under the said scheme that if an encroacher/applicant holds another plot of land shall not be eligible to receive a land encroached by him after fulfilling of all qualifications under the scheme of 1987 but subject to the restrictions laid down under Clause 2 and Clause 5 of the scheme.

39.

The order impugned in this appeal dated December 11, 2024 does not also indicate as to any provisions which bars the appellant to claim the encroached land by way of settlement in his favour under the said scheme. The impugned order has observed that the competent authority considered the prayer of the appellant and did not find them eligible for regularization, we do not agree with such finding, since the order dated February 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans has attained its finality and the said order was passed after conducting a detailed fact finding enquiry and on

the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar incompliance of the relevant provisions of the scheme, as already discussed hereinabove. 40.

The impugned order further records an observation that the High Power Committee rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground that no documentary proof could be submitted by the appellant showing that the High Power Committee ever recommended to approve the case of the appellant for regularization even though initially recommendation was made in favour of the appellant. In our consider view, when already an recommendation was made in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner as would be evident from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999, no further or second recommendation was required to be made for the same.

When the order was passed on February 3, 1999 by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans in respect of the individual encroachers named therein and the said order was passed pursuant to the direction of then Coordinate Bench dated July 20, 1998 and since neither of the said two orders were challenged by the respondents, the respondent cannot contend anything to the contrary and is estopped to do so at this belated stage. The respondent have acquiesced to the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999.

Commissioner, Andamans contemporaneously when the order was passed on February 3, 1999.

41.

We are also unable to agree with the finding in the impugned order that the High Power Committee is the competent authority to allow or disallow the prayer for regularization of the appellant. The term and expression "competent authority" has not been defined under the said scheme. Sub-Clause (g) to Clause 4 of the scheme at page 71 to the paper book provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall submit the case to the Administration for issuance of suitable orders under section 146 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation, 1966 (for short, the Andaman Regulation) in respect of such encroachments which are eligible to be regularized in accordance with the said scheme.

Sub-Clause (h) to Clause 4 of the scheme provides that the orders of the Administration in case of proposal concerning such revenue village shall thereafter be communicated to the Tehsildar concerned through the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner for issue of necessary licences and for correction of land records and assessment and recovery of land revenue. Section 146 of the Andaman Regulation provides that, inter alia, the Chief Commissioner may, on such terms and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit grant a licence in writing to any person to occupy a land to such extent and for such purposes as may be prescribed.

42.

In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, we are of the firm and considered view that the issue has already been settled up to the said order dated February 3, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans and the further steps are required to be taken on the basis thereof.

43.

Accordingly, the order impugned in this appeal dated December 11, 2024 stands set aside.

44.

Consequently, the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the respondent No. 3 dated March 19, 2024 stands set aside and quashed insofar as Survey No. 14 is concerned. The report of the Tehsildar dated August 21, 2023 at page 66 to the paper book also stands set aside and quashed insofar as Survey No. 14 is concerned.

45.

The appellant shall serve copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Andamans dated February 3, 1999 along with this judgment upon the Lieutenant Governor of the territory, being the Administrator of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, who shall take a reason decision on the basis of the said order dated February 3, 1999 and communicate its reason decision to the respondent No. 3 for taking all necessary and consequential steps to give an immediate effect to the said reasoned decision.

46.

The entire exercise shall be carried out and completed by the Lieutenant Governor within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment and order.

47.

The respondent No. 3 depending upon the outcome of the reasoned order to be passed by the Lieutenant Governor shall take all necessary and consequential steps and complete the process positively with a period of further three months from the date of receiving the said reasoned decision from the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

48.

The reasoned decision shall be communicated to the appellant by the office of the Lieutenant Governor within two weeks from the date of the said reasoned decision to be passed. The respondent No. 3 shall also take steps after receiving the reasoned order from the office of the Lieutenant Governor upon notice to the appellant. 49.

With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal being MA/1/2025 stands allowed, without any order as to costs. 50.

The writ petition WPA/356/2024 also stands allowed on the above terms.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. ) I agree ( Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)