Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Keshab Prasad Shaw vs South Dum Dum Municipality And Ors on 21 September, 2011
Author: K.J. Sengupta
Bench: K.J. Sengupta
.9.2011
kc
A.S.T. 668 of 2011
Keshab Prasad Shaw
-versus-
South Dum Dum Municipality and Ors.
With
A.S.T.A. 398 of 2011
Mr. Samit Talukdar,
Mr. Arindam Banerjee,
Mr. Ayan Chakraborty....................For the appellant/
applicant.
Md. Idrish...........................For the respondents No.
1 to 3.
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Awani Kumar Roy..................For the respondents No.4 and 5.
By consent of the parties, instead of hearing the application alone, the appeal and the application are taken up for hearing, treating the appeal as on day's list, dispensing with all the formalities.
This appeal is against the order of the learned trial Judge dated 14th September, 2011. From the tenor of the order, it appears to us that interim order was refused, as prayed for and direction for filing of affidavits has been given, though it is recorded that the writ petition is disposed of. We think that this is a glaring mistake.
Admittedly, Mr. Mitra's clients have already applied for revision of the plan which has already been sanctioned, but construction is being made without having such revised sanction and the application for revision of plan is still pending for consideration.
On earlier occasion, the learned trial Judge passed an order restraining Mr. Mitra's clients from making any construction until sanction is granted. It appears that municipal authority has taken up this application for revision for consideration and it has not been disposed of finally.
After the order of the learned trial Judge, on complaint being received, the municipal authority has already issued a notice not to make any further construction. When we find that the 2 municipal authority has already taken action in the matter, they shall follow up that action, in accordance with law.
Mr. Mitra further submits, in his usual fairness that his clients will not make any construction on the Schedule "C" property. We do not know whether this assurance and statement of Mr. Mitra's clients will really subserve the interest of the parties or not.
However, we direct the municipal authority to examine whether their direction and order is followed scrupulously or not. If not, the municipal authority will take further steps with the help of police and if necessary, they will ask for police picket at the site in question and cost of such police picket may be realised by the police authority in terms of provisions of law.
The concerned overseer of the municipality shall pay surprise visit to the site to see that the order of the municipality is followed and obeyed.
Liberty is given to all the parties to make representation to the municipal authority and if such representation is made, the municipal authority shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal and application stand disposed of. Allegations contained in the application for stay are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents, since no affidavit in opposition has been called for. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicants.
(K.J. SENGUPTA,J.) (JOYMALYA BAGCHI,J.) 3