Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Sri Mrityunjoy Guha Roy vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 March, 2019
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
06.03.2019
.
Item No 12 Court No.15 Avijit Mitra W.P. No. 4172 (W) of 2019 In re : Sri Mrityunjoy Guha Roy
- Versus -
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Jagabandhu Roy, Ms. Manasi Roy For the Petitioner Mr. Martanda Pratap Chakraborty, Mr. Srinath Singha Roy For the State Respondents Mr. Subrata Kumar Basu, Mr. Manoranjan Jana, Mr. Dipanjan Biswas For the Respondent no.6 Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Chandra Das For the K.M.C. Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner be kept on record.
The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is a notice dated 4th January, 2019 issued by the respondent no.2 under Section 411(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short, the KMC Act).
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of the property detailed in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. Pertaining to the property in question, the petitioner was called for a hearing by the Officer-in- Charge of Narkeldanga Regional Thika Tenancy Office on 6th March, 2013. The petitioner duly appeared before the concerned officer but no final decision was communicated to him. In the midst thereof, the KMC authorities had issued a notice 2 under Section 411(1) of the KMC Act. Objecting to the same, the petitioner submitted a representation on 4th February, 2019 but the same has not been responded to.
The learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.6 submits that as the construction existing on the concerned plot of land required immediate repairs, the KMC authorities were approached. Subsequent thereto, the notice under Section 411(1) of the KMC Act was issued. The petitioner was preventing the said private respondent from carrying out necessary repair works. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate passed an order on 29th January, 2019 observing inter alia that the private respondent should not be prevented from carrying out lawful repairs. Let the documents, as produced, be kept on record.
It appears that in exercise of power conferred under Section 411(1) of the KMC Act the notice was issued on 4th January, 2019. By the said notice, the parties were directed to repair the portion of the building which is lying in a damaged condition. Such repairs would enure to the benefit of both the petitioner and the private respondent and as such no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the notice impugned in the present writ petition.
No legally protected right of the petitioner has been infringed warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
3(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)