Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Subarna Baran Panda vs The Contai Municipality & Ors on 30 November, 2017
Author: Shekhar B. Saraf
Bench: Shekhar B. Saraf
1
30.11.2017 W.P. 29154(W) of 2014
ss
Sri Subarna Baran Panda
Vs.
The Contai Municipality & ors.
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee
Mr. Siddhartha Roy
... For the petitioner
Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari
... For the Contai Municipality
Mr. Joydip Kar
Mr. Arka Chakraborty
... For the private respondent
Mr. N. C. Bihani Ms. Srijoni Chongdar ... For the State Affidavit of service filed in Court is kept with the record. It appears to this Court that on 16th November, 2017 this matter was adjourned since nobody had appeared on behalf of the private respondent. Today, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent appears and seeks adjournment. Since the matter was earlier adjourned on the ground of private respondent not being present, the matter is taken up today for hearing.
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging inaction on the part of the respondent Municipal authorities in relation to illegal/ unauthorised construction by the private respondent.
This is the second round of litigation. Earlier on August 6, 2014 an order has been passed by this Court directing the Board of 2 Councillors, Contai Municipality, being respondent no.3, to carry out an inspection and to submit a report.
However, no final decision has been taken by the concerned Board of Councillors.
In light of the above, and after hearing the Counsels for the respective parties and also considering the materials before me, the Board of Councillors, Contai Municipality is directed to once again give an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the private respondents within a period of four weeks from date. Subsequent to such hearing, the Board of Councillors shall pass a reasoned order and serve copy of the same on the writ petitioner and the private respondent within a period of one week from the date of passing of such order.
The Board of Councillors is directed thereafter to act in accordance with law and, if it is found, that unauthorised construction has taken place, the Board of Councillors shall direct demolition of the building by taking police help, if necessary.
Needless to say that the enquiry report dated August 20, 2014 filed by Sri Dilip Kr. Maity has stated that there are certain unauthorised constructions in the said premises. The Board of Councillors shall also take the said report into account at the time of passing the above-mentioned reasoned order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed off.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)