PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) A communication dated August 2, 1983, issued by the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Salt Lake Branch, Sech Bhawan, Calcutta, addressed to Sunil Chandra Ukil, residing at CS 2/2, Golf Green Complex, Calcutta, relating to transfer of Plot No. 188 in Block CD in Sector I, measuring 4. 3628 cottahs of land, be the same a little more or less in Bidhannagar, copy of which has been impugned in the instant writ petition. ( 2 ) THE said communication runs as follows; -" Metropolitan Dev. Department salt Lake Branch sech Bhawan, Calcutta-64. No. 2781-SL/68 34. 322/68-CD-183 from: Asstt. Secy. to the Govt. of West Bengal. To : Sri Sunil Chandra Ukil, cs 2/2, Golf Green Complex, tollygunge, Calcutta, sub. : - Transfer of plot No. CD-183 (4 cottah) in Sector-I of Bidhannagar sir, i am directed to refer to Sm. Bhakti Mondal's letter dated, 22. 3. 83 and to say that as per opinion of the State Advocate, the transfer deed 4. 12. 78 (certificate copy of which was submitted by Sm. Mondal) is not in order, as the same does not bear to convenant to be observed on behalf of the transferee. Accordingly, a deed of Rectification should be executed and registered between you and Sm. Bhakti Mondal and the certified copy of which should be submitted to this Deptt. , for further necessary action in the matter, yours faithfully, sd. . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Secretary. No. 2781/1-SL/sb Dated 2. 8. 83. Copy forwarded to Sm. Bhakti Mondal, of 8, High Mansion, Telkol Ghat, Railway Colony, Dt, Howrah for information and necessary action. This has a ref. to her letter, dated 22. 3. 83. Asstt. Secretary. ". ( 3 ) THE present Rule was issued by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J, on September 20, 1984, when no interim order was granted by the learned Judge and the petitioner was directed to serve copies of the writ petition upon the respondents and liberty was given to pray for interim order and the matter was directed to appear on September 25, 1984. ( 4 ) AFTER the matter became "ready as regards service" on November 21, 1986, it was mentioned before me on December 3, 1986, for early hearing and it was being heard before me on April 2, 1987, May 18, 1987 and hearing was concluded on November 18, 1987, and judgment was reserved. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: by virture of an Indenture dated April 22, 1972, between the Governor of the State of West 'bengal as "lessor" in One Part and the respondent No. 7 Sunil Chandra Ukil as "lessee" on the Other Part, there was a demise of all the rent free land measuring 4. 3623 cottahs be the land a little more or less Plot No. 183 in Block CD in Sector-1 of the Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area in the District of 24-Parganas P. S. Dum Dum being butted and bounded on the North by Plot CD 184 and type VI Road, South Plot No. CD 9 and CD 182 East Plot CD 8 and CD 184 and West by Plot CD 182. ( 6 ) THE said Deed of Lease clearly provided that the Lessor covenants with the lessee shall be provided with all facilities in regard to the sewer connections, water supply, electric connection, road and other amenities as may be available to other lessees in respect of other plots of land of the Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area. The respondent No. 7 Sunil Chandra Ukil applied before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barrackpore/competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on June 5, 1978, seeking permission to sell the plot of land on account of his daughter's marriage ceremony in the prescribed form giving particulars thereof. After obtaining necessary sanction, the said Sunil Chandra Ukil executed a deed of conveyance containing all the lawful. terms dated December 4, 1978, in favour of the petitioner, on receipt of valuable consideration of Rs. 35,000. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, from the recital of the said deed, it appears that there was a clear stipulation that the "transfer" has been effected free from all encumbrances and all the right, title, interest and possession of the said Sunil Chandra Ukil have completely and absolutely been assigned and transferred to and in favour of the present writ petitioner Mrs. Bhakti Mondal to have and to hold the same absolutely and exclusively being entitled to exercise all her right acts of ownership and possession to acquire such leasehold right obtained by the respondent No. 7 from the State of West Bengal on April 22, 1972. ( 8 ) AFTER the purchase, the present petitioner made an application for mutation of her name before the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Salt Lake Branch, Sech Bhawan, on April 25, 1980, as the petitioner was and is entitled to get her name mutated as per recital of the original deed dated December 4, 1973, and in accordance with law. ( 9 ) ON receipt of such application for mutation from the petitioner, the Assistant Secretary to the Public Works Department (Metropolitan Development), Government of West Bengal asked the petitioner to submit the certified copy of the registered transfer deed, which is Annexure 'd' to the present Writ petition and accordingly the petitioner filed the certified copy of the transfer deed along with a forwarding letter dated May 11, 1981. ( 10 ) THEREAFTER, when nothing was done with regard to the mutation, the writ petitioner sent reminders to the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal, Poddar Court, India Exchange Place, on September 23, 1981. ( 11 ) IT is also alleged in the writ petition that unless the petitioner pays solatium to keep the officers and/or employees of the said department in good humour, the prayer for mutation in respect of the properties at Salt Lake Area will not be considered. ( 12 ) IT was further alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that they demanded a large amount in the name of the Minister in Charge, Public Works Department, Sri Prasanta Kumar Sur. ( 13 ) THE petitioner's husband, who is a reputed doctor in Orthopaedic, tried to see the then Minister-in-Charge, Public Works Department, Sri Prasanta Kumar Sur, and as per his direction a representation was also given to the Minister by the letter, dated June 17, 1982. ( 13 ) THE petitioner's husband, who is a reputed doctor in Orthopaedic, tried to see the then Minister-in-Charge, Public Works Department, Sri Prasanta Kumar Sur, and as per his direction a representation was also given to the Minister by the letter, dated June 17, 1982. ( 14 ) THE petitioner further received a letter, dated February 24, 1983, from the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Salt Lake Branch, Government of West Bengal, in response to her letter, dated June 17, 1982, addressed to the Minister-in-Charge whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish an affidavit sworn by herself as per proforma enclosed and a similar affidavit to be sworn by Dr. Sunil Chandra Util replacing the expression of acquiring 'by disposing of' in the draft will, also to be submitted. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner had sent the required affidavit sworn by Sunil Chandra Ukil by letter, dated March 22, 1983, addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal (Metropolitan Development) Department, Salt Lake Area. ( 15 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner received the impugned Memo, dated August 2, 1983, whereby, it was, inter alia, communicated that as per the opinion of the State Advocate, the transfer, dated December 4, 1978, is not in order, as the same does not bear the covenant to be observed on behalf of the transferee. Hence, the present writ application. ( 16 ) MR. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that as there was no bar and/or impediment in allowing the prayer for mutation in respect of the petitioner's purchase of the property of Plot No. 183 Block CD, Sector-I, Northern Salt Lake City Extension, the respondents should have mutated the name of the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 17 ) HE has referred to Clause (7) of the Deed of Agreement, dated September 22, 1972, entered into between Dr. Sunil Chandra Ukil in one part and the Governor of the State of West Bengal on the other part, wherein it has been specifically stipulated that the lessee shall not sub-divide or sub-let the demised land or the building to be constructed, without 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. ( 18 ) IN contending whether a transfer. by. . ( 18 ) IN contending whether a transfer. by. . a lessee and/or sub-tenant is valid or not, Mr. Banerjee after referring to the aforesaid Clause (7) of the agreement, submitted that the aforesaid 'sub-division' or 'sub-letting' does not include 'transfer', as transfer and subletting are not synonymous terms, in the eye of law. ( 19 ) IN elaborating this branch of submission, he has placed reliance on the definition of the word - 'assignment' from Wood-fall's "landlord and Tenant", 25th edition page 890, where the word 'assignment' has been defined, as follows:"an assignment is the transfer of conveyance of some ,pre-existing term or reversion, estate, right, title or interest. The party assigning is called the assignor, and he to whom the assignment is made is called the assignee. The word 'assigns' extends not only to the immediate assignee, but also to assignees and infinitum (a ). Every lessor may assign his reversion, and every lessee may assign his term, unless expressly restrained from so doing by some condition in his lease. " ( 20 ) MR. Banerjee further placed reliance on the characteristics of 'assignment' from Foa's 'landlord and Tenant', 7th edition, page 405, where 'assignment' has been defined as follows: ". . . . . . where a person parts with his whole interest (g),' purports to pass a greater interest than he himself possess (h), the instrument, by whatever name it may be called (e. e. a sub-lease) is in reality an assignment. " ( 21 ) REFERENCE was also made to Osborn's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, page 35, where the word 'assign' has been defined as follows: "assign (1) to transfer property an assignee is clothed with the right of his principal. " ( 22 ) MR. Banerjee having placed the impugned Memo, submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had taken into account extraneous reasons for consideration, as the lessee has the covenants running with the land and the lessee, includes, the purchaser, as both the deeds, dated December 4, 1978, and April 22, 1972, includes the expression and/or words 'heirs', 'executors', 'administrators', 'representatives' and 'assigns' and accordingly, he submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had taken into account extraneous reasons for consideration, as the lessee has the covenants running with the land and the lessee, includes, the purchaser, as both the deeds, dated December 4, 1978, and April 22, 1972, includes the expression and/or words 'heirs', 'executors', 'administrators', 'representatives' and 'assigns' and accordingly, he submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, being the responsible officers and agents are duty bound to effect mutation, as prayed for by the writ petitioner in respect of her purchase of the property in Salt Lake Area and the alleged reasons put forward by the aforesaid respondents, are nothing but harassment made to the writ petitioner. ( 23 ) IN conclusion, Mr. Banerjee submitted that the writ petition should be allowed by issue of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to allow the petitioner's prayer for mutation of her claim in respect of purchase of Plot at 183, Block-CD, Sector-I, Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area, P. S. Dum Dum, District 24-Parganas, in terms of the Deed of Conveyance, dated December 4, 1978, executed by Dr. Sunil Chandra Ukil, respondent No. 7 in favour of the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. ( 24 ) MR. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6 at the outset raised a preliminary point as to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that in any event, contractual obligations cannot be enforced in the present writ proceedings. ( 25 ) IN this connection, he has drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision in the came of Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation v. Shyam Sundar Ganeriwala reported in 91 C. W. N. page 217. In the said judgment, Anil Kumar Sen and Samir Kumar Mookerjee, JJ, after elaborating the cases on this point, in the facts of that case held in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, that no writ lies for enforcement of the contractual obligation. In the said judgment, Anil Kumar Sen and Samir Kumar Mookerjee, JJ, after elaborating the cases on this point, in the facts of that case held in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, that no writ lies for enforcement of the contractual obligation. ( 26 ) IN paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, the Division Bench after referring to the case of The Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels Private Limited reported in A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 848, as well as D. F. O, South Kheri v. Ram Sethi, A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 204, Hindustan Sugar v. The State of Rajasthan and the International Airport Authority A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1628, observed that the Supreme Court was not called upon to go into an issue under consideration before Their Lordships, as observations made in the said judgment are with regard to the obligations of the State and its instrumentalities with regard to their conduct at the stage prior to the contract well described in another decision as at that stage of the threshold to the contract. ( 27 ) AS a proposition or law, there is no dispute about the decision made by the Division Bench in that case, and the said view is binding upon me, but at the same time, here in the present case, as the right is flowing from the contract and/or agreement and the officers of the State Government and/or public bodies are acting arbitrarily, in the matter of not granting mutation, although there is no impediment on the part of the officials to grant mutation, as the same has been done in the case of others, for the relevant period, it will be totally unjust and unfair for this court not to interfere with such high-handed, arbitrary executive action, relying on the broad proposition that no writ lies for enforcement of contractual right, as it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana v. International Airport Authority reported in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1628. ( 28 ) IN particular, the observations made in paragraphs to 26 of the said judgment cannot be lostsight of, wherein, after referring to the principles laid down in earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, Justice P. N. Bhagwati (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Court, observed as follows:"nowhere does it say that such a condition permits the Government to act arbitrarily in accepting a tender or that under the guise or pretext of such a condition, the Government may enter into a contract with any person it likes, arbitrarily and without reason. In fact the court pointed out at the end of the judgment that the act of the Government was not shown to be vitiated by such arbitrariness as should call for interference by the Court, recognising clearly that if the rejection of the tender of the 1st respondent were arbitrary, the Court would have been justified in striking it down as invalid. " ( 29 ) ON merit, of course, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents could not improve upon the facts of the case, which has been supplemented by filing supplementary affidavit affirmed on april 30, 1987, by the husband of the writ petitioner, wherein it was further stated that further to the letter, dated August 2, 1983, addressed by the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Salt Lake Branch, being Annexure 'j' to the writ petition, the petitioner received another letter, being No. 218-SL/sb-3l-322/68, dated March 3, 1984, from the said Assistant Secretary, enclosing therewith a copy of the deed of rectification drafted by the State Advocate. ( 30 ) IN paragraph 4 of the said supplementary affidavit, it was stated that in the affidavit-in-reply affirmed on April 13, 1987, it was stated that the deponent was also offered a plot of land at Salt Lake City by the respondents, but because of the fact that the respondent No. 7 offered to transfer his leasehold rights and interest in the said plot No. 183, Block-CD, Sector-I, the deponent did not proceed to accept the said offer made by the State Government and the said letter has been annexed as Annexure 'l' to the said supplementary affidavit. ( 31 ) I have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, learned Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. ( 31 ) I have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, learned Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. Mihir Roy, learned Advocate for respondent No. 7 and I have gone through Clause (7) of the lease agreement and the impugned letter, dated August 2, 1983, issued by the Assistant Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department, Salt Lake Branch, and in my view, in the facts of the present case, there cannot be any impediment for mutating the name of the writ petitioner, as in the original deed; as well as, in the transfer deed, dated April 22, 1972 and December 4, 1978, there is no clause debarring the respondent No. 7 from making the transfer of the disputed plot in favour of the writ petitioner. ( 32 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. 32a. The Rule is made absolute. ( 33 ) LET a Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue accordingly commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, in particular respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to allow the petitioner's prayer for mutation of her name in respect of her purchased Plot at 183, Block-CD, Sector-I, Northern Salt Lake City Extension Area, P. S. Dum Dum, 24-Parganas, in terms of the Deed of Conveyance, dated December, 4, 1978, executed by Dr. Sunil Chandra Ukil, the respondent No. 7 in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order to the said respondents. ( 34 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 35 ) THE prayer for stay on behalf of the respondent No. 7 is considered and is refused. Petition allowed. .