Judgment This is an application filed by the petitioner, inter alia challenging an impugned order dated 5th February, 1998 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue H.O.) and to declare the same as ultra vires to the Constitution and also for issuance of writ inter alia in the asture of mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants, agents to cancel and/or withdraw the impugned order dated 5th February, 1998 and also taking from any further steps in accordance with the said impugned order. 2. The case of the petitioner that he is the owner of two adjacent plots of land and is entitled to have those plots of land amalgamated. The petitioners are the owners of premises No. 2, Janki Shah Road and also the premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road, Calcutta-22. The petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the petitioners who are the owners of premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road submitted an application for mutation, amalgamation of the said premises in respect of premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road. Similarly, one Mr. N.L. Jani, being the Constituted Attorney of the owners of the premises No. 2, Janki Shah Road, Calcutta submitted a form for mutation and amalgamation of the said premises with the respondent authorities on 24th May, 1996. It appears that on 11th June, 1996, the respondent authorities duly mutated the name of the petitioners as the owners of the premises No. 2 as well as also the premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road, Since then no steps have been taken for amalgamation of the said two premises as a result whereof the petitioners duly made a representation to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) of the respondents authorities on January 17, 1997, stating that the aforesaid two plots of land are not hit by the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Thereafter, the said Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) duly intimated by its Memo bearing No. ... dated February 25, 1997, whereby it was stated that the aforesaid two premises is hit by the said Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and asked the petitioners to clarify their stand in the matter. Thereafter, it was specifically mentioned by the petitioners that the aforesaid two premises are free from ceiling limit under the said Act. Thereafter, it was specifically mentioned by the petitioners that the aforesaid two premises are free from ceiling limit under the said Act. In spite of that no steps have been taken by the respondent’s authorities to amalgamate the said premises in question. Thereafter, the petitioner duly obtained a no objection certificate from the competent authority under the said Act. In spite thereof the respondents’ authorities did not take any steps in respect of such amalgamation of the laid two premises in question. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ application was heard and disposed of by His Lordship G.R. Bhattacharjee, J., on 11th November, 1996, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation which was filed by the petitioner on February 26, 1997. His Lordship was pleased to farther direct the respondents on 11th November, 1996, particularly the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by passing a Speaking Order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or such other persons shall dispose of the same. Such steps to be taken by the respondents authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order thereafter, the laid order was duly served upon the respondents, Pursuant to and in terms of the said order. On 31st December, 1997 respondents Nos. 3 end 4 passed an order on the basis of hearing made by them and communicated the said order on the petitioners. According to the petitioners the said order dated December 31, 1997 was passed totally in violation of the order passed by this High Court on November 11, 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt application being C.C. No. 14 of 1998, (1) Sati Development Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Mihir Das before His Lordship G.R. Bhattacharjee, J., directing the respondent No. 4 to pass a reasoned order within two weeks from the date of the communication on the said order. Thereafter, the present order was passed on February 5, 1998, by the respondent No 4. Hence this application has been filed challenging the said order dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the said respondent authorities. 4. Thereafter, the present order was passed on February 5, 1998, by the respondent No 4. Hence this application has been filed challenging the said order dated 5th February, 1998 passed by the said respondent authorities. 4. In passing the said order it appears from the order which has been passed by the said concerned authorities that the Corporation authorities refuse to grant such amalgamation to the petitioners inasmuch as they are not 50% owner of the premises in question and further area of the premises are located within the "C" zone area. 5. Mr. Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the said policy without being authorities by any law or without having any statutory force can be passed by, the authorities. He further submitted that such policy cannot have any binding effect upon the petitioners. He further submitted that the provisions laid down in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, do not provide for Constitution of Expert Committee for any decision making process and/or policy and the said order dated 5th February, 1998, is wholly had since in is based on the opinion of the Experts constituted by the Constitution to frame certain terms and conditions in respect of grant of amalgamation. According to him such Constitution of Experts is wholly extra statutory in nature and it is not backed by any resolution whatsoever. He further submitted that under the said Act it is specifically mentioned that any rule should be made by the State Government by way of publication and notification in the official gazette. There is no such publication has been made by the respondent authorities or the State Government. In view of that policy decision cannot have any effect at all. He further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the application of the petitioners as it relates to amalgamation will be governed on the basis of rules prevailing on the date of submission of the said application, i.e. in the month of May 1996. Admittedly at that point of time there was no rule or regulation is respect of amalgamation or there was any impugned policy as stated by the authorities concern. In Support of his contention be relied upon a judgment reported in (2) 1995(2) CHN 56 , Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. Admittedly at that point of time there was no rule or regulation is respect of amalgamation or there was any impugned policy as stated by the authorities concern. In Support of his contention be relied upon a judgment reported in (2) 1995(2) CHN 56 , Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Arunendra Nath Banerjee and also judgment reported in (3) 1995 (1) CLJ 34 , Arunendra Nath Banerjee v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. He further submitted that the same view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (4) Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay v. Cantonment Board & Ors. reported in 1992 (3) SCC 455 , Mr. Ray further submitted that the impugned order dated 5th February, 1998 is totally arbitrary. He submitted that the co-owners are free to transfer any portion of their right, title or Interest under Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982. He further submitted that Court has jurisdiction to give time to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in (5) AIR 1987 SC 537 , Comptrollers & Auditor General of India v. Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Ors. 6. Mr. Das Adhikary appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner applied for amalgamation of two different parts being premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road, measuring about 13 Kottah 4 Chattacks area and abutted by 31'-0" wide Read and premises No. 2, Janki Shah Road measuring about 1 Bigha 3 Chattacks 25 Sq. Ft. area abutting 11'-0" Road in front of the premises. Both the premises are connected to a very narrow corner passage as would appear from page 59 of the writ petition being Sketch Map of those two premises. Such amalgamation was asked for by exchange of 10 Sq. Ft. of Land in between the petitioner. Such amalgamation is sought for getting higher floor area ratio for construction of New Premises. Since premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road, is abutted with 31'-0" wide Road in front, the said premises in case of reconstruction would get higher floor area ratio whereas premises No. 2, Janki Shah Road which is abutted by 11'-0" Road in front, in case of reconstruction it would get lesser floor area ratio. 7. Mr. Since premises No. 4, Janki Shah Road, is abutted with 31'-0" wide Road in front, the said premises in case of reconstruction would get higher floor area ratio whereas premises No. 2, Janki Shah Road which is abutted by 11'-0" Road in front, in case of reconstruction it would get lesser floor area ratio. 7. Mr. Das Adhikary appearing on behalf of the respondent’s authorities drew my attention to the order passed by the respondent No. 4 which is being Annexure-"N1" to the petition (appearing at page 80 of the said writ petition) and submitted that the amalgamation has been asked only for the purpose of Constitution of building and to get a higher constructed area in the proposed building plan to be submitted by them. He further drew my attention to the part of the order which are as follows:- "In view of the above, it is decided to impost conditions for amalgamation of plots while dealings proposals under Section 178(4) of the C.M.C. Act, 1980, as well as under Section 47 of the W.B.T. & C (P & D) Act, 1979, as follows notwithstanding the provisions contended in the Act or Rules. Amalgamation of plots will be allowed:- (a) If all the plots to be amalgamated are having means of access/abutting street of 'Same Width' or if all the plots are abutted with the same means of access street amalgamation will be generally allowed ('Same Width' means category of width as is in the F.A.R. Table of the Building Rules). (b) Amalgamation of plots shall be allowed if the plots involved are not owned by the same owner/owners. In case of co-ownership of the plots seeking amalgamation no such prayer shall be granted, if each co-owner does not have in divided interest in every portion of land, building or anything affixed to the land of the plots to be amalgamated provided however that persons seeking amalgamator shall be owners at least to the extent of 50% of the plots involved. (c) In case of any plot coming under the purview of the Heritage Building of Section 2(42A) and/or is terms of the proviso of the, Section 425(8), the Municipal Commissioner may not generally allow amalgamation. However, with the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee, this resolution may be relaxed. (c) In case of any plot coming under the purview of the Heritage Building of Section 2(42A) and/or is terms of the proviso of the, Section 425(8), the Municipal Commissioner may not generally allow amalgamation. However, with the recommendation of the Heritage Conservation Committee, this resolution may be relaxed. (d) If it appears that all the plots proposed to be amalgamated were originally one single plot after the C.M.C. Act, 1980, came into force and were subsequently separated into several plots for partition amongst family members and such family themselves are interest to be re-amalgamated the plots for collective use the amalgamation may be allowed by the Municipal Commissioner. (c). The plots within the Development Control Zone 'C' as described in Chapter-7.1(1) of the LUDCP only and within Wards 45 and 63 may be generally allowed on the followed conditions:- That all the plots having a means of access of different width (i.e., not of the same category as specified in the F.A.R. Table of the Chapter 16 of the LUDCP) a portion of land of the total plot is to be gifted to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation by Registered Deed free of cost, unconditionally and free from any encumbrances. If the total area of all the plots becomes:- (i) less than 5,000 sq. mt., 3% of the total land to be so gifted. (ii) 5,000 sq. mt. or more but less than 25,000 sq. mt., 5% of the total land to be so gifted. (iii) 25,000 sq. mt. or more, 7% of the total land to be so gifted. (f) The amalgamation of plots which is not within the Development Control Zone 'C' as described in Chapter-7 Clause 7.1(i) of the LUDCP or not within Wards 45 and 63 may not be generally allowed. However in the localities where held is required for the improvement of civil infrastructure amalgamation may be allowed on compliance of other grounds stated above and on gifting a portion of land to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation free of cost by a Registered Deed unconditionally and without any encumbrances. The said quartum of land to be so gifted will be calculated on the following basis:- (i) less than 5,000 sq. mt., but more than 300 sq. mt., 5% of the total land. (ii) less than 25,000 sq. mt., but more then 5,000 sq. mt, 8% of the total land to be so gifted. The said quartum of land to be so gifted will be calculated on the following basis:- (i) less than 5,000 sq. mt., but more than 300 sq. mt., 5% of the total land. (ii) less than 25,000 sq. mt., but more then 5,000 sq. mt, 8% of the total land to be so gifted. (iii) 25,000 sq. mt. or more, 15% of the total land to be so gifted. (g) If any of the plot is found land locked, then for providing an appropriate means of access amalgamation may be allowed in any locality of the C.M.C. compliance of the above conditions. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation may utilise the said gifted lend for the improvement of the civil infrastructure, public open space, parks, development of streets or may lease out or give licence to any party such land for the above purpose or may accommodate anything within the land which is in the opinion of the Municipal Commissioner is required for the improvement of traffic and pedestrian movement or the improvement of the civic services, Municipal Health Services etc. such gifted land should have enough access in terms of the LUDCP. The owner/owners/co-owners shall be allowed to utilise the F.A.R. for the purpose of the construction of building within the rest of the plot in terms of the Act and Building Rules. In view of the aforesaid policy, the instant petition of the petitioner seeking amalgamator cannot be entertained since they are not they owners to the extent of 50% of the premises Nos. 2 & 4, Janki Shah Road and also because of the fact that the area where the aforesaid two premises are located falls within the area other than 'C' Zone where generally amalgamation of premises shall not be allowed excepting certain condition. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner seeking amalgamation is rejected and the petition of the petitioner is thus disposed of." 8. He further submitted that when the Government forms its policy, it is based on number of circumstances of facts, and law including the constraints based on its resources. It is also based on Experts' opinion. It would be dangerous to ask for testing of the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would disassociate itself from entering into its realm which belongs to the executive. It is also based on Experts' opinion. It would be dangerous to ask for testing of the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The Court would disassociate itself from entering into its realm which belongs to the executive. He further submitted that the Supreme Court has already held that if any opinion has been formed by the Government or the authorities and if it is based on any relevant facts and circumstances or on Experts' advice, in that case Court would not interfere the said opinion and/or the Experts' advice. In support of his contention be relied upon a judgment reported in (6) 1998 (2) Judgment Today page 136, State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga. He further submitted that the public interest should override the private interest, loss or gain. In view of that be relied upon the judgment reported in (7) 1997 (3) SCC 398 , Shrijee Sales Corporation & Another v. Union of India. He also submitted that the matter involves the public interest and Court should not interfere any action taken by the authority in public interest. In view of that he placed reliance on a judgment reported in (8) 1997 (10) Judgment Today page 155, Sale, Tax Officers & Anr. v. M/s. Shree Durga Oil Mills & Anr. He further submitted that Supreme Court has already held in (9) 1995(1) SCC 125 , State of West Bengal v. Terra Firma Investment, & Trading Pvt. Ltd., that the rules prevailing at the time of sanctioning are applicable. Therefore, question of submissions of the application has no criteria at all in the instant case. In view of that he submitted that the Municipal authorities has taken steps in accordance with the Experts' opinion and has passed a reasoned order. The Court should not interfere at this stage with the same. 9. In view of that he further submitted that there are other applications also which are pending will be governed by the decision to be taken by the concerned authorities. 10. Mr. Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the submission made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Corporation has no substance at all. The judgment cited namely, State of Punjab & Ors. 10. Mr. Ray appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the submission made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Corporation has no substance at all. The judgment cited namely, State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga reported in JT 1998 (2) SC 136, has no application in the instant case as because the alleged policy as stipulated in the impugned order dated 5.2.1998 has no legal sanctity and as such the Hon'ble Writ Court can set aside the same holding the same as an extra statutory act on behalf of the authorities. The other judgment relied upon namely, Sales Tax Officers & Anr. v. M/s. Shree Durga Oil Mills & Anr. reported to JT 1997 (10) page 155, is also not applicable in the instant case which deals with grant of exemption in sales tax and withdrawal of the same at a later stage. The last judgment relied upon by the Corporation namely, State of West Bengal v. Terre Firma Investment & Trading Private Limited reported in 1995 (1) SCC page 125, as regards retrospective effect of ordinance is also not applicable the instant case as is the said case an amending ordinance was made by the State. In the instant case no notification whatsoever has been published and as such the alleged condition imposed by the purported order has not been notified in the official gazette and as such is wholly extra statutory in nature and cannot have any binding effect in any manner whatsoever. 11. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. I have also considered the order which has been passed by the concerned authority, after giving hearing to the parties and that too by a reasoned order. The Court at this stage should not go to the evidence at all. The Court will examine that whether the order which has been passed by the concerned authority is arbitrary and in violation of natural Justice, at this stage. The Court at this stage should not go to the evidence at all. The Court will examine that whether the order which has been passed by the concerned authority is arbitrary and in violation of natural Justice, at this stage. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the concerned authorities after giving a hearing to the parties and after taking into account of all the facts and circumstance of this case has passed a reasoned order and it appears that in passing such order there is no violation or natural Justice or there is no arbitrariness appears from the records of the said reasoned order. It further appears that Apex Court has already held in State of Punjab & Ors., v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, 1998 (2) JT page 136, that if any opinion has been formed by the authorities on Experts advice, as in the instant case, Court would not interfere with the said advice. In view of that I do not wish to interfere in this matter and as such this application must fail. Stay prayed is refused.