Judgment 1. THE petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the lessees in respect of residential plot nos. E.C. 31 and EC 29 respectively in the Salt Lake City, Sector - 1, District 24 Parganas and they have constructed residential houses on their said plots of land in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Salt lake Authority. The respondent no. 7 dr. Dina Nath Banerjee also took lease of E. C. plot no. 30 situated in between the lands of the petitioner no. 1 and petitioners nos. 2 and 3 from the State of west Bengal, the respondent no. 1, for a period of 999 years and he has also constructed a two storied house on the said plot of land in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Salt Lake Authority. The said Salt Lake City was a planned city developed at the instance of the state of West Bengal and a master plan of Sector 1 of the Salt Lake City was prepared by the then Special Engineer, deb Kumar Chatterjee in 1967 wherein the residential area, the commercial area, parks etc, were shown and all the plots in E. C. Sector were shown as residential plots in the said Master plan. The petitioners as well as the respondent no. 7 applied for taking lease of plots of land in Sector I of the Salt Lake City to the respondent no. 1. 2. THE respondent no. 1 intimated the petitioner No. 1 Sudhindra Kumar Mondal by a letter no. 1382 - ISC (A. G.)dt. February 2, 1966 that a plot of land measuring 5 kathas more or less at the salt Lake City which was being developed might be demised to him on lease for 999 years on certain terms mentioned therein. Clause (g) of the said terms provide that the plot of land will be used exclusively for residential purposes; and for no other purpose. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as annexure "c" to the writ petition. The petitioner no. 1 by his letter which was in the prescribed form applied for accepting the offer of allotment of land on the terms and conditions embodied therein. Term no. 9 is as follows :- "that I shall use the said land for the purpose of erecting a building for residential purposes and for no other purpose whatsoever". The petitioner no. 1 by his letter which was in the prescribed form applied for accepting the offer of allotment of land on the terms and conditions embodied therein. Term no. 9 is as follows :- "that I shall use the said land for the purpose of erecting a building for residential purposes and for no other purpose whatsoever". The said offer of the petitioner no. 1 was duly accepted by the Deputy Secretary, Irrigation and waterways, Department, Salt Lakes. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as annexure "c" to the petition. 3. THEREAFTER on May 29, 1967 the Deputy Secretary, Government, of West Bengal sent a letter No. 1899 ISL (AL)to the petitioner no. 1 intimating him that Government decided to allow him to choose a plot for allotment out of plots of land available in Sector I of the township and he was asked to meet the executive Engineer, Planning at 9, Brabourne road to make his choice of a plot of land. A copy of this fetter has been annexed as annexure "d" to the petition. Petitioners chose two plots mentioned before in E. C. Block of Sector I which is a residential area. Two Deeds of lease were executed by the petitioner no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and the respondent, the Governor, State of West Bengal taking lease of the said two plots of land for 999 years on terms and conditions mentioned therein. The relevant terms of the deed of lease are set out hereunder. 4. TERM No. 2 (7) - The lessee shall not sell-divide or sub-let the demised land or the building to be constructed without the consent in writing of the Government first had and obtained and the government shall have the right and be entitled to refuse its consent at its absolute discretion. Term No. 2 (10)-'not to use or allow to be used the land and/or the structure thereon or any part thereof for any purpose other than residential purpose without the prior permission in writing of the Government or other authority prescribed in that behalf. 5. Term No. 2 (10)-'not to use or allow to be used the land and/or the structure thereon or any part thereof for any purpose other than residential purpose without the prior permission in writing of the Government or other authority prescribed in that behalf. 5. TERM No. 4 - Provided always that if there be any breach of any of the terms and conditions and covenants herein on the part of the lessee, the lessor shall have the right to re-enter into possession of the demised land or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall forthwith stand determined. Provided nevertheless the lessor shall not exercise the right without serving the lessee a notice in writing giving six month's time to remedy the breach. A copy of the Indenture of lease executed by petitioner no. 1 has been annexed as annexure "b" to this petition. 6. THE petitioners have stated that the respondent no. 7 after constructing a two storied building on plot no. E. C. 30 let out the said premises to respondents nos. 8 and 9 for the purpose of processing leather and leather goods. For this purpose machineries have been installed and several workers have been employed thereby converting the residential premises into a factory illegally and in contravention of the terms of the deed of lease. Thus the respondents nos. 7 to 9 are trying to disturb, diminish and destory the advantages, amenities and change the environmental ecology by converting a residential house into a commercial one. A duty is cast upon the respondents nos. 1 to 6 on the principle of promissory estoppel to proceed against the respondents nos. 7, 8, and 9 under the forfeiture clause provided for in the agreement as it is on the basis of the promise made by the respondents nos. 1 to 6 that the petitioners have invested considerable sum of money for construction of their houses with the hope of enjoying the benefits and advantages of quiet living in their houses in residential area as promised by the state Government and as shown in the master Plan and mentioned in the registered lease deed and agreements made between the lessor and the lessees. It has been further stated that the petitioner no. I sold his house in Beliaghata for the purpose of constructing his house in plot no. It has been further stated that the petitioner no. I sold his house in Beliaghata for the purpose of constructing his house in plot no. E. C. 31 in order to enjoy the above, amenities. It has been pleaded in the petition that the plots have been demarcated in a planned way and shown in the Master Plan in order to eliminate noise, disturbance and to create an environment of quiet and peaceful living for the persons constructing houses in the residential area earmarked in the said master plant The petitioners submitted that the installation of the High power generator producing great sound, emitting unhealthy smokes. Hides and skins are also being douched in chemicals and water causing unhealthy bad smell in the locality. It has been further submitted that the respondents nos. 7, 8 and 9 are not residing in premises no. E. C, - 30 but they live in Calcutta outside the Salt lake City. The respondent no. 7 previously let out the said premises to West Bengal State Electricity Board for starting a Training Institute. The petitioner no. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 631 of 1979 in the Court of 3rd Munsif at Sealdah against the respondent no. 7 and the State Electricity Board. There was an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from starting the training College and from holding classes. During pendency of the Rule the state Electricity Board cancelled the lease and vacated the premises. The suit was withdrawn thereafter. 7. IT has been submitted that the respondents nos. 1 to 6 have a public duty to maintain the scheme of the Salt Lake city in to and they cannot permit any deviation, except for a public purpose. The respondents nos. 1 to 6 are bound to take appropriate steps to prevent the respondents nos. 7, 8 and 9 to deviate from the terms and conditions of the agreement, the lease deed and the scheme as shown in Master Plan and to convert the residential house into a factory. Moreover the Salt Lake City is a Government Township within the meaning of west Bengal Government Township (Extending Civil Amenities) Act, 19751 representations were made to the respondents nos. 1 to 6 but no steps were taken against respondents nos. 7 to 9 to prevent the running of the factory and| or the use of the building for commercial purposes. 8. 1 to 6 but no steps were taken against respondents nos. 7 to 9 to prevent the running of the factory and| or the use of the building for commercial purposes. 8. HENCE the instant writ application, has been moved before this Hon'ble Court on August 24, 1981 and a Rule was issued and interim order was made to the effect that the respondents 7, 8 and 9 were restrained from continuing any, operation at E. C. 30 Salt Lake City which is the subject matter of the present application for two weeks This interim order was extended till the disposal of the Rule by order dated November 9, 1981. An affidavit- in- opposition sworn by one Sri Amiya Kumar Bhowmick, the assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Metropolitan Development Department on 13th December, 1982 on behalf of defendants nos. 1 to 5 has been filed. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit the deponent averred that he would refer to the terms contained in the indenture of lease executed by the respondent no. 7 and the Government of west Bengal on 25. 6. 73 in respect of e. C. 30, Sector I, of the Northern Salt lake -for the purpose of ascertaining the true meaning and effect thereof and he does not admit anything inconsistent therewith. It has been further averred therein that the respondent no. 7 applied to Government to take lease of the land mentioned and described in the schedule there under for erecting a house and building for residential purposes on the terms and conditions contained therein and in consideration of the purposes for which the land was required by the said lessee and also in consideration of the premium and of rent referred to therein, the said land was leased out by the lessor to him for a period of 999 years. The deponent also mentioned the clauses 2 (4), 2 (7), 2 (9), 2 (10) and clause 4 of the said lease dated 25. 6. 73. It has been further stated therein that the terms contained in clauses 2 (8), 2 (11) and 2 (12) of the petitioner's lease do not appear in the Said lease of respondent no. 7. 9. IN paragraph 5 of the said affidavit the deponent stated that pursuant to government order no. 1250 IST (AL) dated 1.2.66 allotting a 5 Katha plot to the respondent no. 7. 9. IN paragraph 5 of the said affidavit the deponent stated that pursuant to government order no. 1250 IST (AL) dated 1.2.66 allotting a 5 Katha plot to the respondent no. 7 exclusively for using the same for residential purpose, the respondent no. 7 forwarded, his application in the prescribed form dated 1. 3. 66 accepting the said offer of allotment of land, to the Governor, State of West Bengal. It has been stated that the respondent no. 7 as per term no. 2 clause 10 (d) of his said application agreed to use the land for the purpose of erecting a building for residential purposes, and for no other purposes whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government. It has been further stated that though the respondent no. 7 inserted in the printed form of the said application the word "professional" yet the said word 'professional' wag not mentioned in the indenture of lease executed by him and the Government of west Bengal on June 25, 1973. It has also been stated that by letter no. 1891|sl (AL) dated 29. 5. 67 the respondent no. 7 was asked by the Government to select a plot of his choice, as per the Blue print of the said plan of Sector 1, Northern salt Lake City. He was also informed by the said letter that he could also select a plot where shop would be allowed in the ground floor on payment of extra amount. That pursuant to the said government order, requiring him to exercise his choice the respondent no. 7 as per his letter dated 19. 6. 67 selected residential plot no. E.C. 30 as per Blue print of the said plan of Sector I, Northern Salt Lake City. The said residential plot was earmarked for him and by letter no. 2699 ISL (AL) dated 1.6.70 10.6.70 the Deputy Secretary, State Government directed him to execute the lease deed in connection with the grant of lease of plot no. E. C. 30 by the State government in his favour. The said deed of lease was executed by the respondent no. 7 on 25. 6. 73. Copies of the correspondences along with a copy of the agreement dated 1. 3. 1966 have been annexed as "a" to the said affidavit. 10. E. C. 30 by the State government in his favour. The said deed of lease was executed by the respondent no. 7 on 25. 6. 73. Copies of the correspondences along with a copy of the agreement dated 1. 3. 1966 have been annexed as "a" to the said affidavit. 10. IN paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit- in- opposition it has been further averred that in the late 50's the Government of West Bengal decided to establish a township in Salt Lake and in accordance with that decision instructions were issued for developing sector I of the Salt Lake keeping in view that 60% of the total area had to be made residential plots besides other aspects. The area within the aforesaid sector I was reclaimed and developed and after such development it was divided into blocks indicating the roads, residential plots and plots of other categories. This division was done and the same was shown in the Master Plan of Sector I prepared by the Special Engineer, Salt lake Reclamation and Development Circle in accordance with the Government instruction as stated hereinbefore. It has been further stated that both the allotment of land by the Government as well as selection of land by the allottees were made on the basis of the said plan of sector I. The said plan of sector i, Salt Lake City as prepared by the special Engineer was duly approved by the State Government without any revision whatsoever. The State Government subsequently approved the said plan as per G. O. No. 95 (2) I. S. L. dated 27th February 1969 addressed to the chief Engineer I. W. Directorate and also to the Special Engineer Salt Lake reclamation and Development Circle with further instruction to the Special engineer to prepare the plan of sectors 2,3 and 4, Government of West Bengal also approved selling of the copies of the blue print of sector I to the intending lessees as per. G. O. No. 829 I. S. L. (A. L.) dated 15th|16th February, ' 1967 in order to enable them to exercise their preference in selecting a plot of their choice on the basis of the said blue print. It has been further stated that the petitioner as well as respondent no. G. O. No. 829 I. S. L. (A. L.) dated 15th|16th February, ' 1967 in order to enable them to exercise their preference in selecting a plot of their choice on the basis of the said blue print. It has been further stated that the petitioner as well as respondent no. 7 and also other allottees of Salt Lake Sector I, selected their respective plot on the basis of the aforesaid plan of Sector i. The said correspondence has been annexed as annexure 'b' to the said affidavit. It has been further stated in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit that the plots of the petitioners as well as of the; respondent no. 1 are all residential plots and none of them can use his: land or building constructed thereon for any purpose other than residential purpose without obtaining prior permission from the State Government. It has been stated that the respondent no. 7 appears to have sub-let a portion of the premises no. E.C. 30, Sector I Salt Lake without obtaining prior permission from the State Government there for nor he at any material time obtained permission in this regard from the State Government. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 7 has allowed the respondents nos. 8 and 9 to use portion of the premises no. E. C. 30 for commercial purposes in clear breach of the terms of his lease. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit- in-opposition it has been further stated that the Salt Lake City is a Government township governed by Act XLII of 1975 (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act, 1975 as amended by Act No. XXXII of 1976. Section 4a of the West Bengal Government Act XLII of 1975 (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act 1975 as amended by Act XXXII of 1976 confers power on the Administrator to issue prohibitory or regulatory order or direction with the approval of the State Government regarding (a) use of land for residential industrial, commercial or other purposes, (b) reservation of land for roads, garden, recreation grounds, school etc. In exercise of power conferred by section 4a of the said Act the Administrator, Bidhan Nagar appointed under section 4 of the said Act with the approval of the said Act issued a notification (no. 10-SL)dated 13. 10. In exercise of power conferred by section 4a of the said Act the Administrator, Bidhan Nagar appointed under section 4 of the said Act with the approval of the said Act issued a notification (no. 10-SL)dated 13. 10. 77 published in the Calcutta Gazette dated November 10, 1977 part I. pages 2399-2400 imposing statutory restrictions and prohibitions regarding the use of the land in the Salt, Lake township. A copy of the said notification have been annexed and marked as annexure c to the said affidavit. It is evident from item 3a'of the said notification read with schedule (iii), that the land in block E. C of sector I, Bidhan Nagar are earmarked for use of residential purpose only. It has been further stated in paragraph 12 of the said affidavit that in the indenture of the lease executed by the respondent no. 7 and the Government of West Bengal it has been expressly provided that in clause 4 that if there is any breach of the terms and conditions and covenant contained therein on the part of the respondent no. 7 then the State ' Government,' reserved the power upon serving on him a notice in writing giving six months time to remedy the breach to reenter into possession of the demised land or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereby the lease should stand determined. An affidavit- in- opposition sworn by the respondent no. 7, Dr. Dina Nath banerjee on 31st August, 1981 has been filed. It has been stated in paragraph 10 that he denied that he got the lease for restrictive covenant as alleged. He also stated that market, banks, schools etc had been established in many blocks attached to the residential houses of the local people who are all lease holders. It has been further stated in paragraph 11 that.- Central Bank of India 5s functioning at plot no. E. C. 156 besides one school is going to open at plot no, E. C. 282. Another Higher Secondary School is due at plot no. E. C. 281 for construction. The allegation about, the deponent plot E. C. no. 30 are baseless and motivated, it had been further stated that the deponent has every right and privilege to use his plot no. E. C, 30 at Sector- I Salt Lake city for residential and professional purposes in terms of the lease agreement. E. C. 281 for construction. The allegation about, the deponent plot E. C. no. 30 are baseless and motivated, it had been further stated that the deponent has every right and privilege to use his plot no. E. C, 30 at Sector- I Salt Lake city for residential and professional purposes in terms of the lease agreement. It has also been staled in paragraph 12 that there is no restrictive covenant in respect of construction and user of his building on the said plot and he asserted that he can use his house for professional and residential purposes. It has been further stated in paragraph 13 that the respondents nos. 8 and 9 have not built up any factory as wrongly alleged nor they have installed any heavy machinery or any high voltage power. They have been inducted in the premises as tenant mainly for residential purposes and also for their profession in finished leather goods in their trade name Exquisite Implex Private Ltd. There is no attempt to disturb, diminish and destroy the advantages, amenities, facilities and change of environmental ecology by converting the valuable property of this deponent to the risk of running a factory and consequent damages of the said property. It has been further stated in paragraph 15 that there is no factory for processing leather, nor are hides and skins being douched in chemicals causing unhealthy bad smell in the locality. 11. AN affidavit- in- opposition sworn on behalf of the respondent nos. 8 and, 9 by Benoy Kumar Chamilia on 19th November 1981 has been filed. It has been stated in paragraph 12 of the said affidavit that the respondents nos. 8 and 9 had been inducted as tenant mainly for residential purposes and also for their profession in finished leather goods in their trade name Exquisite Implex Pvt. Ltd. Further the respondents are using respondent no. 7's electric metre for the said professional works. There is no attempt to disturb, diminish and destroy the advantages, amenities, facilities and change of environmental ecology by converting the said residential house into a factory it has been further stated that from August 18, 1981 the said respondents have started operation of their business activities in premises no. E. C. 30. There is no attempt to disturb, diminish and destroy the advantages, amenities, facilities and change of environmental ecology by converting the said residential house into a factory it has been further stated that from August 18, 1981 the said respondents have started operation of their business activities in premises no. E. C. 30. It has also been stated in paragraph 25 that the respondents 1 to 6 have a public duty to enforce this scheme of Salt lake City for the benefit and protection of neighbouring houses including those of the petitioners. But in this case no breach was committed by respondent no. 7 by leasing out the property to the respondents nos. 8 and 9 and the question of non discharge of public duty does not arise at all. 12. IN paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit sworn by Sri Deb Prosad chatterjee Special Engineer, Salt Lake re- Clamation and Development Circle on 31st July 1984 it has been stated that he undertook lay out planning of the entire Salt Lake City under Government instructions issued from time to time. It has also been stated that the deponent prepared the Master Plan of Sector- I as Special Engineer, Salt Lake reclamation and Waterways Directorate and signed the said plan on 25th January 1967. As such he was competent to depose to the same. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it has been stated further that the plan of Sector- I was done by him as per Government instruction issued to him from time to time. It has been further stated that according to the Government instruction he made following provisions in the said plan of Sector- I, Salt Lake City: (a) 60% of the total area are covered by residential plots (b) location of commercial plots in one zone (c) location of a few shop allowable plots meant to cater the local needs within each residential blocks etc. It has been further stated in paragraph 5 that he prepared the plan of sector- I, Salt Lake City and duly signed the same on 25,1,1967 and the said plan was duly approved by the Stale government. In, Sector- I almost all the blocks excepting block D C, D E, and DF and part of block A. E., E. A., and E. B. are for residential purposes. In, Sector- I almost all the blocks excepting block D C, D E, and DF and part of block A. E., E. A., and E. B. are for residential purposes. In these residential blocks some plots have been earmarked as shop allowable plots and was shown in the plan as such. In those shop allowable residential plots shops could be allowed to be run in the ground floor only to cater to local needs within each residential block. It has been further stated in paragraph 7 that as per the said plan plot nos. 29, 30 and 311 in E. C. block are purely residential plots and these are not to be used for commercial or professional or any purpose other than residential without prior permission of the Government! In E. C. Block there are only 4 numbers of shop allowable residential plots numbering 96, 97, 136 and 137.Mr. S. B. Bhunia, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted in the first place that from 1965 to 1973 the Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution issued orders laying down the manner of making application for allotment of land persons desirous of taking lease of land in Sector- I of the northern Salt Lake City as well as for submitting letter of allotment to the government in the prescribed form agreeing to accept settlement of the plot allotted on the terms and conditions prescribed, therein and also signing the agreement which is in a prescribed form by the intending lessees and subsequently excepting a deed of lease with the government on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. These executive orders are made in accordance with the powers conferred by Article 162 of the constitution of India and as such they are enforceable in law and the violations or infringement and/or contraventions of such executive orders are amenable to the jurisdiction of the writ courts and appropriate writs or orders or directions can be asked for directing the State to take steps to enforce plans prepared under such executive orders. It has been next submitted that the terms and conditions contained in the letter of allotment as well as in the agreement and in the deed of lease constitute a promise held out by the State of West Bengal to the intending lessor who on the. It has been next submitted that the terms and conditions contained in the letter of allotment as well as in the agreement and in the deed of lease constitute a promise held out by the State of West Bengal to the intending lessor who on the. basis of said terms have changed their position by taking settlement of the lands in Sector- I of the Northern Salt Lake city by paying the premium fixed there for and as such the Government is estopped from allowing and/or permitting the breach of such terms contained in the aforesaid offer of allotment as well as the agreement and the deed of lease by compelling the plot holders or the ' lessees to strictly conform to the terms of the promise contained in the said documents. In other words it has been contended that up to 1977 there is a promissory estoppel on the part of the Government to permit breach of the promises contained in the said documents. Several decisions on this question have been sited at the bar. It has been lastly submitted that in 1975 the West Bengal Government Township (Extension of Civic amenities) Ordinance 1975 was enforced and the area comprised within Bidhan Nagar, that is, Salt Lake area was declared to be a Government Township. The Administrator issued certain directions in relation to the area declared as a Government Township specifying that lands comprised in the residential area, that is block no. E. C, has to be used for residential purposes and houses constructed on the lands in said block can be used for compatible purpose specified therein only with the previous permission in writing of the Administrator. The said land may not be used for incompatible purposes mentioned therein. It has been submitted by referring to this direction that there has been a violation and/or breach of the statutory provisions and as such the writ application is maintainable and appropriate directions, writs or orders should be made directing the State of West Bengal to restrain the respondents from contravening the provisions of the said act. It has been submitted by referring to this direction that there has been a violation and/or breach of the statutory provisions and as such the writ application is maintainable and appropriate directions, writs or orders should be made directing the State of West Bengal to restrain the respondents from contravening the provisions of the said act. It has also been submitted that both in the prescribed letter of allotment as well as in the agreement made in the prescribed term' entered into by the plot holders with Government and also in the indenture of lease executed by the lessor and the lessee there are ' certain terms and conditions as to the mode of use of land and structure to be built thereon. Referring to this it has been submitted that the public authority cannot deviate from the standards laid down in those documents. The decision of the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1628 has been cited at the bar. It has been last submitted by Mr. Bhunia that there has been a total breach of the scheme contained in the master plan as well as the terms and conditions laid down in the letter of offer of allotment and also in the agreement and the deed of lease and as such the State as a public authority can not act arbitrarily or without jurisdiction by not enforcing the provisions of the Act against those who has contravened the same. 13. MR. Sakfi Nath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the added respondents the Salt Lake Welfare Association and E. C. Block association, has also submitted that the Sali Lake Town was a planned town which was developed at the instance of the Government and a master plan was prepared showing therein the area earmarked for residential purposes or earmarked, for commercial purposes as well us parks schools, markets etc and the lessees of E. C. Block of Sector- I of Northern Salt Lake city on seeing the scheme and also the terms and conditions as contained in the offer of allotment in the prescribed form as well as in, the letter of agreement to be made by the lessee with the lessor in the prescribed form came forward to take lease of those plots of land and in fact took lease of the plots of land of the residential area in E. C. Block. The Government being a public authority can not act arbitrarily or unreasonable by permitting in this case Respondent No. 7 to use his residential building for commercial purposes and not residential purposes and thereby to act in contravention of the said scheme. In support of this submission Mr. Mukherjee cited two decisions at the bar. 14. MR. Naranarayan Guptoo the Government Pleader, appearing with Mr. Bose Advocate for the said State respondent submitted before the Court that the master plan of Salt Lake City was published on the 25th January 1967 and the same was prepared by the then Chief Engineer, D. P. Chatterjee. In the said master plan E. C. Block of Sector- I was shown as residential area. It has been further submitted by the Government Pleader that on 15th July 1965 in amrita Bazar Patrika under the caption application forms for residential plots as well as application form for lease of non residential plots had been advertised. In the said advertisement published in Amrita Bazar Patrika on 15th July 1965 it has been specifically mentioned in clause l (. i) "lease will be for 999 years. The lease-hold plots are to be used only for residential purposes, and construction must conform to the building Rule from time to time prescribed by the sait Lake Reclamation and Development Board. It has been submitted, that sector- I E. C. Block was undoubtedly shown as area for residential purposes. Moreover in the application accepting otter of allotment of land there is a similar provision in clause 9 to the effect that the land will be used for the purpose of erecting building for residential purposes and for no other purposes whatsoever. There is a similar term in the deed of lease. It has, therefore, been submitted that the lessee while giving his offer agreed to the said terms and took lease of the said plot of land on the said terms and conditions. There is a similar term in the deed of lease. It has, therefore, been submitted that the lessee while giving his offer agreed to the said terms and took lease of the said plot of land on the said terms and conditions. Moreover in the lease deed there is a term in clause 2 Sub-Clause 7 that he will not sub-let the said residential house constructed on the said plot of land and also Sub-Clause 9 of Clause 2 further provides that the lessee shall not use or allow the use of the land or structure thereof for any purpose other than residential purpose without prior permission in writing of the government on that behalf and paragraph 4 of the said deed of lease also expressly provides that the Government shall have the right of re-entry in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease. But before such right is exercised six months notice has to be given to the lessee to remedy the breach. It has, therefore, been submitted on behalf of the State that the respondent no. 7 is bound to conform to the terms and conditions of the offer of allotment as well as the agreement made by him and also the indenture of lease and he is not under any circumstance competent to urge before this Court that he can use the residential house for commercial purposes or for purposes other than residential purposes. In such circumstance it has been submitted that tins writ court has got ample jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ or order or directions for enforcement of the terms and conditions contained in the scheme as well as in the various documents including the advertisement inviting oners of allotment, the acceptance of the oiler of allotment as well as the indenture of lease Mr. Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 7, has submitted in the first place that the plea of estoppel is not sustainable inasmuch as there is no question of any promise made by the State, of West Bengal and the petitioners did not change their position acting on the basis of the said promise. There is a concluded lease between the, respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 1, the State of west Bengal. In such circumstances the question of promissory estoppel does not arise. There is a concluded lease between the, respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 1, the State of west Bengal. In such circumstances the question of promissory estoppel does not arise. Moreover the change of position was made by petitioner no. 1 much later as Beleghata house was sold by the petitioner some time in 1978, that is, much later to the acceptance of the offer and the letter of allotment calling for choice dated 25. 6. 57 as well as the execution of the lease deed by the petitioner no. 1 on 13th August 1967. It has been next submitted by Mr. Mitra that the respondent no. 7 while accepting the offer of allotment of plot. no. 30 in E. C. Block, Sector- I, Northern Salt lake expressly mentioned in term no. 9 of the application accepting offer' of allotment of land that he will use the land for purpose of erecting the building for residential and commercial purposes and for no other purposes whatsoever. It has also been submitted by Mr. Mitra that in paragraph 10d of the said letter it was expressly stated that the lease shall contain covenant to observe and perform by him as lessee amongst others to use the land only for the purpose of erecting the building for residential and professional purposes and for no other purposes whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government. Regarding express terms of offer of allotment it has been accepted by the Government, that is, the respondent no. 1, that the respondent no. 7 is entitled to use the building constructed by him on plot no. E.C. 30 not only for the purpose of his residence but also for commercial purposes. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 7 let out the ground floor of the said premises to the respondents nos. 8 and 9 for stitching leather bags and the other leather goods by bringing tanned hides from outside and such purposes fall within commercial purposes. As such it cannot be said that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the offer of allotment and the agreement and also the terms and conditions of the lease as the indenture of the lease was entered into between the respondent no. 7 and the State of West Bengal on the basis of his application accepting offer of allotment of land. 7 and the State of West Bengal on the basis of his application accepting offer of allotment of land. There has been no violation of the terms contained in paragraph 10d of the application accepting offer of allotment of land as well as the terms and conditions contained in the lease deed entered into by the respondent no. 7 with the Government. It has been further submitted that the master plan which was published on 25th January 1967 was not in existence at the time when the application was made by the petitioner for taking settlement of a plot of land and as such the question of violation of the terms, and conditions of the scheme as envisaged in the master plan does not arise. It has been further submitted by Mr. Mitra that one who comes to equity court seeking equity must come with clean hands. In this case it has been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief inasmuch as in utter breach of the promise contained in term no. 9 of the prescribed application form for lease of residential plots which expressly provide that person applying for lease of residential plot shall have to disclose the detail of any immoveable property held in West Bengal or any share or interest therein by the applicant or the applicant's wife husband. In this case though the petitioner owned a property in the name of his wife Kamalabala Mondal i.e., premises no. 3c, Harimohan Roy lane under P.S. Entally, Calcutta 15 and this was sold out to one Furnendu kumar Divedi only on 10th March 1978 by a registered deed of sale executed in march 19, 1978. It has been submitted that petitioner having not disclosed this property in his application for lease of a residential plot in Salt Lake City the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. This writ application is liable to be rejected in limine. It has been next submitted by Mr. Mitra that unless there is an actionable nuisance a neighbour cannot bring any action ' for violation of building rules of municipality in the matter of construction of a building. The decision in 81 Calcutta Weekly Notes 870 had been cited at the bar. It has been next submitted by Mr. Mitra that unless there is an actionable nuisance a neighbour cannot bring any action ' for violation of building rules of municipality in the matter of construction of a building. The decision in 81 Calcutta Weekly Notes 870 had been cited at the bar. It has been lastly submitted by Mitra that some of the clauses in the lease deed, that is, clauses 2 (8), 2 (11), and 2 (12) were deleted by Government order, As such it has been submitted that the terms and conditions contained in the indenture of lease are not mandatory but directory and substantial compliance 'with the same will do. It has been submitted by Mr. Mitra that the right to transfer being allowed the right to sub let which is a part of that right should be allowed as this right is included within the right of transfer. It has been submitted that the decision in A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 2177 also cannot apply to this case. Mr. Mitra has lastly contended that if the respondent no. 7 has violated any of the terms and conditions of the lease it is for the State government to exercise its powers reserved in paragraph 4 of the indenture of lease viz., the right of re-entry by giving six months notice. The petitioners who are outsiders and being not parties to the said indenture of lease are not competent to bring this writ application for enforcement of the terms and conditions of the lease and this application at their instance is not maintainable in this jurisdiction -. 15. THE plea of promissory estoppel is in my opinion not applicable in the instant case inasmuch as there is neither any promise made on behalf of the State of West Bengal nor the petitioner has acted on the basis of the promise and altered his position. Moreover there is nothing to show that the Government has resiled from the promises alleged to have been held out by if. The petitioners as well as the respondent no. 7 applied for taking settlement of certain 'plots of land in E. C. Block of Northern salt Lake City known as Bidhan Nagar. Moreover there is nothing to show that the Government has resiled from the promises alleged to have been held out by if. The petitioners as well as the respondent no. 7 applied for taking settlement of certain 'plots of land in E. C. Block of Northern salt Lake City known as Bidhan Nagar. Thereafter a letter of offer of allotment signed by the petitioner was accepted by the Government and the petitioner was asked to choose two plots of land on seeing the master plan prepared by the Special Engineer and the then Chief engineer, Salt Lake Reclamation and development Circle Sri Deba Prosad Chatteriee. After selection of the plot and payment of the premium for taking lease of the plot and the indenture of lease was executed between the parties, that is, the lessee and also the lessor, the State of West Bengal. In such circumstances there is no question of any promissory estoppel and as such this submission, in my opinion, is without any substance. 16. IT has been next submitted by Mr. Bhunia that from 1965. till the enforcement of West Bengal Government Township (Extension of Civic Amenities)Ordinance 1975 and thereafter West Bengal Government Township Extension of civic Amenities Act 1975 as subsequently amended by Act "xxxii of 1976 all the orders that were made by the Government are executive orders made in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 162 of the Constitution of India and these orders are quite valid and enforceable till the said Act has been enacted and enforced. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhunia in this connection that under the provisions of Section 4a of the amended West Bengal Government township (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act, 1975 as amended in 1976 the administrator appointed under Section 4 of the said Act has been empowered to issue in relation to Government Township or any part thereof with the approval of the State Government such regulatory or prohibitory directions as may be considered necessary regarding the matters specified therein. In clause (a) of the said section it has been mentioned that the directions may relate to the use of land for residential, industrial, commercial or other purposes. In clause (a) of the said section it has been mentioned that the directions may relate to the use of land for residential, industrial, commercial or other purposes. According to this provision of Section 4a the administrator issued certain directions with the approval of the State Government in regard to the areas comprised within Bidhan Nagar (Salt Lake area) which has been declared to be a Government township by notification no. 12 S.L. dated 10th October 1979 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Public works Department. It has been provided in paragraph 3 (a) of the said directions that lands comprised in the area specified in schedule III (hereinafter referred to as the residential area) shall be used for residential purposes. It has been further provided in Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 3 that residential development and compatible uses in respect of the residential area specified in paragraph III (A) of Schedule IV shall also be permissible in such area provided that for the compatible uses of land, specified in item 4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of Pari : iii (A) of Schedule IV previous permission in writing of the Administrator shall be necessary, (c) 'in compatible uses in respect of the residential area specified in Part III (B) of Schedule IV, shall not be permissible in such area referring to these directions it has been submitted by Mr. Bhunia that the respondent no. 7 has sub-let the premised at plot no. 30 E. C. Block to respondents nos. 8 and 9 for manufacturing leather goods by installing machines and generator and making leather goods using chemicals process in utter violations of the provisions of the terms and conditions of the indenture of lease as well as of the acceptance of the letter of allotment of the land and of the scheme as envisaged in the master plan prepared by the Special Engineer Irrigation and Wafer Ways, Government of West Bengal. If has also been submitted by Mr. Bhunia that the operation of this small scale industry and/or factory has become a source of nuisance and has polluted the environment ecology of the residential area. For the violation of the This statutory provisions this writ application is maintainable- and appropriate writs or directions may be issued enforcing Government to stop the use of the residential premises for purposes other than residential purpose and thereby violating the scheme of the whole planned township. For the violation of the This statutory provisions this writ application is maintainable- and appropriate writs or directions may be issued enforcing Government to stop the use of the residential premises for purposes other than residential purpose and thereby violating the scheme of the whole planned township. This submission, in my opinion, is sustainable inasmuch as there has been a flagrant violation of the scheme envisaged in the master plan and also of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement in Amrita Bazar Patrika inviting offers for settlement of land which has been annexed as annexure "a" to the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners sworn by petitioner no. 1 sudhindra Nath Mondal on 31st January 1983. It has been provided in the said application form for taking lease of residential plots or flats as follow : 1) lease for residential purposes - lease will be for 999 years. The lease-hold plots are to be used only for residential purposes and construction must conform to the building rules from time to time prescribed by the Salt Lake Reclamation and Development Board. It also appears from clause (g) of the terms and conditions in the letter of' offer of allotment signed by the respondent no. 7 that the land will be used exclusively for residential purposes and for no other purposes. Similar provision has been made in paragraph 10d of the application accepting offer of allotment of land. Of course the respondent no. 7 has inserted the word 'profession' both in paragraphs 9 and 10d after the word residential. But in the original indenture of lease executed by respondent no. 7 Dr. Dina Nath Banerjee and the State of West Bengal this word is conspicuous by its absence. There in paragraph 2 (9) the purpose of the use mentioned was only residential purposes and it was expressly provided therein that the land or the structure thereon will not be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than residential purposes without the prior permission in writing of the government or other authority prescribed on their behalf. There in paragraph 2 (9) the purpose of the use mentioned was only residential purposes and it was expressly provided therein that the land or the structure thereon will not be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than residential purposes without the prior permission in writing of the government or other authority prescribed on their behalf. In paragraph 2 (7)it has also been provided that the lessor shall not sub let the demised land or the building to be constructed without the consent in writing of the Government first had and obtained and the government shall have the right and be entitled to refuse its consent at its absolute discretion. Therefore the argument that was tried to be advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 7 that the land has been taken lease of. both for residential and commercial purposes and as such letting out of the ground floor of the building to the respondents nos. 8 and 9 for running an industry of making leather goods does not amount to contravention of the scheme envisaged in the development and planning of the Salt lake City and of the terms and conditions of the deed of lease is wholly devoid of any merit. On the other hand such act of sub letting by the respondent no. 7 to the respondent nos. 8 and 9 for running a small scale industry has in fact been done in flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of the scheme as well as directions issued by the Administrator with the approval of the state Government in exercise of his powers conferred by section 4a (a) of the west Bengal Government Townships (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act, 1975 (West Bengal Act XLII of 1975). According to the said directions compatible uses in respect of residential area is permissible provided permission in writing of the Administrator is taken before hand and this compatible uses of land for which permission may be sought for has been specified in item nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of port III (A) of Schedule IV of the said directions. The letting out- of the ground floor of the building in question to the respondents nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of port III (A) of Schedule IV of the said directions. The letting out- of the ground floor of the building in question to the respondents nos. 8 and 9 for purpose of industry including small scale industry does not fall within, any of the compatible uses of the land as mentioned hereinbefore, but it comes within incompatible uses in respect of residential area as specified in paragraph III (B). Such an use of residential land in residential area for incompatible uses being not permissible there is a clear violation of the provisions of the said directions made by the Administrator, Bidhan Nagar. In such circumstances in my considered opinion this writ application is maintainable and the State of West Bengal as a public authority is under an obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoiled by unauthorised uses of the building constructed therein. It is pertinent to mention here the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of K. R. Shenoy Vs. Udipi Municipality, A.I.R. 1974 S. C. 2177 where a. N. Roy C. J. observed that the appellant could challenge at the threshold when the scheme which was framed for the benefit of the residents in that area was violated by the Municipality. The municipality acted for the public benefit in enforcing the scheme. Where the municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not excising its jurisdiction irregularly for wrongly but it is usurping the power which it does not possess. In the instant case there has been a violation of the scheme of the Salt Lake City which has been framed by the Government for the [benefit of the residents of that area. As such if is the duty of the Government to stop all such violations or breach of the scheme made for the benefit of the residents of that area. There has also' been a flagrant breach of the directions issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 4a of the West Bengal Government Townships (Extension of Civic amenities) Act, 1975. (West Bengal Act lxii of 1975. It is the duty of the respondents nos. 1 to 6 to prevent any infringement of the statutory directions issued by Administrator, Salt Lake township. (West Bengal Act lxii of 1975. It is the duty of the respondents nos. 1 to 6 to prevent any infringement of the statutory directions issued by Administrator, Salt Lake township. The petitioners are undoubtedly aggrieved persons inasmuch they have taken settlement of their respective plots of land in the said township and constructed their residential houses being enamoured of the scheme made by the Government. In those circumstances I am constrained to hold that this application is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner in this jurisdiction. 17. IT has been tried to be submitted on behalf of the respondents nos. 7, 8 and 9 that at best there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the lease for which there is a remedy provided in paragraph 4 of the said terms and conditions of the lease viz., the right of the re-entry by the authority concerned on serving a notice of six months on the lessor to remedy the breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. The petitioners who are outsiders cannot complain of the breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and as such this application is not maintainable at their instance. This submission, in my opinion, cannot be sustained as I have already held that there is a scheme made by the Government for the orderly development of the Salt Lake Town and for the benefit of the residents of the salt Lake City. In violation of the provisions of the scheme by user of the building for purposes other than purposes provided in the scheme will certainly affect the interest of the residents of the block that is the E. C. Block of sector I of Northern Salt Lake City. In such circumstances the said Submission is, in my opinion, wholly unsustainable. 18. IT has been tried to be submitted an behalf of the respondents by referring to the provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and development) Act 1979 that the. word commercial has been defined in section 25 of the said Act as carrying on of any trade business or profession sale or exchange of goods of any type and it includes the running of with a view to making profit hospital, nursing home, infirmaries etc. word commercial has been defined in section 25 of the said Act as carrying on of any trade business or profession sale or exchange of goods of any type and it includes the running of with a view to making profit hospital, nursing home, infirmaries etc. and commercial use has been defined in Section 2 (b)to "mean use of any land or building or part thereof for purposes of commerce or for storage of goods or as an office whether attached to an Industry or otherwise. Refereing to this section it has been tiled to be contended that since the word commercial has been inserted in the application (accepting offer of land, the letting out of (the portion of the premises r. c. 30 E. C. Block to respondent nos. 8, 9 for manufacturing and/or preparing or making leather goods by bringing hides from outside fall within the commercial purposes. There is no violation of the scheme and/or the terms and conditions of the acceptance of the offer of allotment of land as well as of the terms and conditions of deed of lease. This argument, in my opinion, is not sustainable inasmuch as the said Act is not applicable to Bidden Negar which has been declared a Government Township under the West Bengal Government Township (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act 1975. Section 10 of the said Act expressly provide that the provisions of the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained either in any other law or in any contract express or implied, or in any instrument and notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary. Therefore the West Bengal Act XLII of 1975 will prevail over acts and section 142 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act 1979 which repealed several acts but has not repealed the West Bengal Government townships (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act 1975. Therefore this argument is of no avail as the said Act has got no application to the salt Lake City which has been declared a Government Township under the 1975 Act. It is proper to mention in this connection that though the term professional was inserted in the application accepting offer of allotment of land signed by respondent nos. Therefore this argument is of no avail as the said Act has got no application to the salt Lake City which has been declared a Government Township under the 1975 Act. It is proper to mention in this connection that though the term professional was inserted in the application accepting offer of allotment of land signed by respondent nos. 7 as well as by the government of West Bengal yet this was not mentioned in the deed of lease entered into between respondent no. 7 and the government of West Bengal. The deed of lease is the final document which goes to prove that the purpose of the lease was to use the land for construction of building for residential purpose and for no other purpose. (Moreover in the master plan prepared by the Special engineer cum Chief Engineer of the Irrigation and Waterways Department the entire E.C. Block was shown as residential area. This will also be evident from the clear\averments made by Deba Prosad Chatterjee, the then Special Officer, Salt Lake Reclamation and Development Circle and thereafter the Chief Engineer in his supplementary affidavit sworn on 31st July 1984. Considering all these documents it is quite clear that the E. C. Block was shown in the scheme as for residential use only. As regards the submission that the petitioner no. 1 having not come to this court with clean hands is not entitled to get any relief on the instant application, the petitioner at the time of making his offer for taking lease of a plot of land in Salt lake City in the prescribed form annexed as annexure I to the supplementary affidavit sworn by petitioner no. 1 on January31, 1983 has to state in paragraph 9 of the said form the details of any immoveable property held by him or his wife in West Bengal. The petitioner, it has been stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit- in- opposition to the said supplementary affidavit sworn and filed on 28th February, 1983 did not disclose this fact that his wife Sm. Kamala Mondal owned a house at No. 3c hari Mohan Ray Lane, P. S. Entally calcutta-15 and the non disclosure of which would disentitle him to get settlement of the plot no. 31 of E. C. Block. Kamala Mondal owned a house at No. 3c hari Mohan Ray Lane, P. S. Entally calcutta-15 and the non disclosure of which would disentitle him to get settlement of the plot no. 31 of E. C. Block. The said premises was sold only oh 10th march 1978 whereas the application for taking settlement of the land was made on 2nd February, 1966 and the allotment of plot no. EC 31 of sector 1 of Northern Salt Lake City was made in 1967 and the Indenture of lease, was executed and registered on 13th august 1970., Because of this deliberate suppression of the above facts in his application for a plot of land as well as his making false declarations in the application accepting offer of allotment of the said plot he is not entitled to be a legitimate plot holder for E C. 31-of Salt Lake Town ship and his instant application should be dismissed. This contention, however, is not tenable inasmuch as this non-disclosure of the fact in question has no immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for. It is, of course, an well established rules of equity that he who desires equity must approach the Court with clean hands. But as has been stated in Spry's Equitable remedies, second Edition, pages 5 and 6 that the absence of clean hands is of no account unless the depravity, the dist. in question, on the other hand, has an immediate and necessary effect to the equity sued for. This submission is, therefore, overruled. 19. IN the premises aforesaid the contentions on behalf of the petitioners having succeeded, the Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents nos. 1 to 6 to take appropriate steps immediately stopping the running of the industry and the use of the ground floor of the premises for purposes of industry by the respondent nos. 8 to 9 by removing the leather machinery and the chemicals from the premises no. E. C. 30. Let a writ in the nature of mandamous or direction issue to the respondent no. 7 directing him to forbear from sub lefting the said residential premises for any purposes in contravention of the directions made under section 4 (A) of the West Bengal Government Townships (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act 1975. E. C. 30. Let a writ in the nature of mandamous or direction issue to the respondent no. 7 directing him to forbear from sub lefting the said residential premises for any purposes in contravention of the directions made under section 4 (A) of the West Bengal Government Townships (Extension of Civic Amenities) Act 1975. There will however be no order as to costs. 29 On the prayer of Mr. R. N. Mitra, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 7, the operation of the judgment is stayed for a period of a fortnight from date. In the meantime the respondents nos. 7, 8 and 9 are in juncted from running the leather industry or any other industry in the premises in question or from using the premises for any other commercial purposes. Rule made absolute