Aizawl: Calcutta high court has directed the Mizoram govt to complete the sale of its property in Kolkata’s Old Ballygunge place, earlier used as Mizoram House, to Excel Vincom Pvt Ltd for around Rs 38.3 crore, ruling that a change of govt cannot be used as grounds to withdraw from a deal already agreed upon and acted upon.A division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed the state’s appeal on Friday and directed it to execute the sale deed within eight weeks.The court described the cancellation of the agreement by ZPM govt that came to power in Dec 2023 as appearing to be a case of “regime revenge”. “The govt cannot renege on a promise made and acted upon by a citizen to his detriment, only because there is a change in regime,” the bench observed.The dispute concerns the property at 24 Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, which Mizoram purchased in 1973 and later used as a govt guesthouse and office. In May 2023, then Mizo National Front govt put the property up for e-auction, with Excel Vincom emerging as the highest bidder. A sale agreement was signed on Oct 6, 2023.However, the proposed sale triggered opposition among sections of the Mizo community in Kolkata. The Kolkata Mizo Students and Calcutta Mizo Welfare Association urged the govt to preserve the property, citing its historical and heritage value.After Zoram People’s Movement (ZPM) govt assumed office in Dec 2023, it cancelled the tender process, citing public interest, and refunded the company’s payment.Appearing for Mizoram, advocate general Biswajit Deb argued that the cancellation was prompted by public sentiment rather than political considerations. He maintained that ownership had not been transferred as the sale deed had not been executed, and govt was therefore entitled to withdraw from the process.However, senior advocate SN Mookherjee, appearing for Excel Vincom, argued that the transaction had reached its final stage and that execution of the sale deed was the only remaining formality.The bench noted that the state had received the full sale consideration and interest for delayed payment of an instalment. It said the new govt had cancelled the agreement unilaterally without establishing any overriding public interest to justify the decision.The court held that the cancellation was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
