JUDGMENT I.P.MUKERJI, J. 1. THE only question to be answered in all the above writ applications is whether the Land Manager (I/C) had the power to issue the notice to quit vacate and deliver up possession of the leased property. 2. ACCORDING to me, there is an apparent conflict between the decisions in C.O. No. 2423 of 2002, M/s. Om Credit Corporation and another v. Board of Trustees of The Port of Calcutta and another (unreported) decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11th January 2005 and W.P. No. 767 of 2009, Universal Auto crafts Private Limited and Anr. v. The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and Ors. (unreported) decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 24th February 2010. In both the above cases, identical issues as in this matter were involved. But I do note that the earlier decision was not cited before the Court delivering the later decision. 3. THE issue requires interpretation of Sections 21 and 34 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 together with resolution No. 82 dated 26th May 1988. On a consideration of the above sections of the said Act and the resolution, the earlier decision holds that the Land Manager or Deputy Land Manager has the power to issue ejectment notice whereas the later decision holds that he has no such power. But I also do note the following: 1. From the earlier decision of this Court a special leave petition was preferred before the Honble Supreme Court of India which by its order dated 7th November 2005 condoned the delay but dismissed the special leave petition. 2. On the question of delegation of powers by the Chairman Port Trust to the Land Manager, by an undated letter of 1988 the Under Secretary to the Government of India wrote to the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust in reply to his letter dated 8th June 1988 referring to the opinion of the Ports legal advisor. The Under Secretary stated it is not clear why the Port Trust cannot take recourse to this action. This may please be examined and your views communicated urgently. 3. The Under Secretary stated it is not clear why the Port Trust cannot take recourse to this action. This may please be examined and your views communicated urgently. 3. It further appears that by a letter dated 22nd January 1989 from the Secretary of the Calcutta Port Trust to its land manager it was stated that the power delegated to the Chairman cannot be further sub delegated to any other officer and that he should take the Chairmans approval for determination of leases sanctioned by the trustees. 4. THE above correspondence were not discussed in either of the two cases (supra). It was argued before me that I should decide the matter on the basis of these new materials. I am of the view that when the issue was substantially before the two Honble Single Judges and they have delivered conflicting judgments, as noted above, this application be heard by a suitable bench to be constituted by the Honble The Chief Justice. Hence, let the file be placed before the Honble The Chief Justice for appropriate orders. 5. LET the above two letters, the undated letter of 1988 of the Government of India to the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust and the letter dated 22nd January 1989 of the Secretary Calcutta Port Trust to the land manager together with photocopies of the two unreported decisions of this court referred to in this order be appended to the judgment and order for the convenience of the Honble the Chief Justice. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, to be provided upon complying with all formalities.