JUDGMENT : 1. It is an apparent example where the authority has proceeded with closed eyes and mind and it would not be wrong to record that an clement of bias is percolated in the impugned order. 2. The authority was more swayed by an order of the learned District Judge, Howrah than to take into consideration the observations and the directions passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition. 3. The opening paragraph of the impugned order reflects the order passed by this Court and the direction to consider the matter but the later portion of the order is completely silent and there is no whisper anywhere that the authority has acted strictly in terms of the directions passed by this Court. Strangely enough, the authority proceeded to declare the termination of the lease deed and declare the right of the Howrah Municipal Corporation at the said premises in complete defiance to the direction passed by this Court. 4. A writ petition being W.P. 12429 (W) of 2016 filed by the petitioner came up for final disposal on 19th September 2016 and was disposed of with the direction upon the Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation to consider the matter and pass a reasoned order after allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his stand. 5. It is profitable to quote the entire order dated 19th September 2016 in W.P. 12429 (W) of 2016 which is reproduced as under: "The Howrah Municipal Corporation passed an order on 15th June, 2016 taking back the possession of a premises which was used by the petitioner society. Their short ground was that the property was leased out to the society to be used for promotion of sporting activity. A multi-gym was being run without any sanctioned plan. Marriage and other ceremonies were allowed to be held which were against the terms of the lease, which prohibit commercial activities. A mobile tower had been erected without permission. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the premises has been shut down without any authority of law. The hearing which was held prior to the order was not even closed. The grounds mentioned in the order are not tenable. Mr. C.C. Behani, learned Advocate for the Howrah Municipal Corporation submits that commercial use of the premises is against the purpose for which the society was entrusted with this property. The hearing which was held prior to the order was not even closed. The grounds mentioned in the order are not tenable. Mr. C.C. Behani, learned Advocate for the Howrah Municipal Corporation submits that commercial use of the premises is against the purpose for which the society was entrusted with this property. They were to use it for sporting activities. Documents have been annexed to the petition to show payment of sanction fee (at page 55) and issuance of trade licence (at page 60). I find that a clause in the lease stipulates that the premises will not be used" mainly for commercial exploitation". Mr. Mukherjee submits that the fees are being charged for use of the premises for marriage other ceremonial purposes and running a multi-gym. The revenue generated is used for the purpose of the society. In my opinion, some more serious consideration should have been made by the Howrah Municipal Corporation before directing closure of the premises. The Commissioner will have to hear the case of the petitioners. First of all, it has to be ascertained whether the plan was sanctioned by the Corporation. If such is the case, the petitioners will be entitled to operate the multi-gym, which in my opinion, is part of sporting activities. The Commissioner will also ensure that letting out of the premises for matrimonial or other ceremonial purposes is not encouraged with a commercial motive but for betterment of the society. He will see whether the premises is let out on days when sporting activities do not take place or parts of it which are not used for sporting activities, are let out to earn revenue. He will also determine whether the money, which is received by the society, is used for the purposes of the society. Similar will be his approach towards the letting out of the space for the purpose of erection of the mobile tower. The Commissioner, Howrah Municipal Corporation will pass a reasoned order, by allowing the petitioners to adduce evidence and upon hearing the petitioners, within eight weeks of communication of this order. The Office bearers of the society in the meantime will be allowed to enter their office in the premises to take stock of the cheque books, other bank documents and the records of the society. The Office bearers of the society in the meantime will be allowed to enter their office in the premises to take stock of the cheque books, other bank documents and the records of the society. The petitioners will be able to run their office from the premises but for the time being without indulging in any activity, till the decision of the Commissioner. The activities that the petitioners will be ultimately entitled to undertake will depend upon the decision so taken by the Commissioner. All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. The writ application is thus disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the parties upon usual undertaking." 6. It can be reasonably inferred from the meaningful reading of the aforementioned order that the allegation was made by the petitioner against the action of the Corporation in wrongfully and illegally taking over the possession of the demised premises. 1'he co-ordinate Bench directed the commissioner to ensure that no commercial activities in any form is carried out therein and the commissioner should determine whether the premises is let out on the days when the sporting activities do not take place and whether revenue is earned therefrom. If so whether such revenue is utilised for the purpose of the society for which it is constituted. It was further indicated whether the installation of the mobile tower confirms to the object and purpose of the society. 7. There was a sufficient indication in the said order what the commissioner is required to determine. 8. My endeavour has failed to find out from the impugned order passed by the commissioner that any of such points have been considered. The observations of the commissioner run counter to the stand of the Howrah Municipal Corporation taken in the suit filed before the Civil Court. If the stand of the Corporation is considered to be correct that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered its leasehold rights by delivering the possession to the Corporation, there is no occasion to proceed and declare the lease deed to be cancelled, terminated and/or rejected. Furthermore, such termination is made on the premise that the lease was unregistered one. 9. If the stand of the Corporation is considered to be correct that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered its leasehold rights by delivering the possession to the Corporation, there is no occasion to proceed and declare the lease deed to be cancelled, terminated and/or rejected. Furthermore, such termination is made on the premise that the lease was unregistered one. 9. It is a matter of evidence whether the commissioner has a power to terminate the lease when the lease was executed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. The commissioner appears to have usurped all the authorities of the corporation undermining the limitation set up in the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act. There is no hesitation in my mind that the commissioner have acted in a bias manner and the entire decision has been taken with the closed mind and inclined towards the corporation. 10. This Court, therefore, can not sustain the said order, which is hereby set aside. 11. Equally this Court cannot overlook the admitted fact that the petitioner has not been permitted to enter into the office set up at the demised premises despite the specific order passed by this Court in a earlier writ petition. There is an apparent suppression of fact before the learned District Judge at the time of the admission of an appeal and passing of the ex parte ad interim order restraining the petitioner from disturbing and/or ousting the Corporation from possession in respect of the demised premises. 12. It is a matter of regret that despite the petitioner having apprised the learned District Judge, Howrah that the said ex parte ad interim order of injunction runs counter to the order of this Court passed in an earlier writ petition, instead of refusing to extend the ad interim order of injunction or to vacate or varied the same, the administrative power was used in transferring the appeal to an additional District Judge, Fast Track Court. 13. Since both the orders are operating in the field and there is an apparent conflict therein, this Court, therefore, feels that the authorities cannot rely upon one order which suits him and defy the other order. 13. Since both the orders are operating in the field and there is an apparent conflict therein, this Court, therefore, feels that the authorities cannot rely upon one order which suits him and defy the other order. It was all along the stand of the Corporation that they are in possession and in view of the specific order passed by this Court directing them to permit the petitioner to use the office for their activities with restraint, this Court directs the Corporation to allow the petitioner to use the office in terms of the order dated 19th September 2016 passed by this Court in W.P. 12429 (W) of 2016. Such possession shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and shall be subject to the decision of the civil suit filed by the Corporation or the appeal pending before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Howrah. 14. The Commissioner is directed to consider the matter afresh strictly in the light of the observations/directions passed in W.P. 12429 (W) of 2016 within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 15. The writ petition is disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for by the parties, be given to them on priority basis preferably within three days therefrom.