Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Cowcoody Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Serampore Municipality & Ors on 31 August, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 4 31.08. W.P. No.29449(W) of 2017 ns 2018 Cowcoody Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Serampore Municipality & ors.
Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr. Adv., Mr. P. K. Jhunjhunwalla, Mrs. Alpan Chaudhury ... for the petitioner. Mrs. Sima Adhikari ... for the State. Mr. Goutam Lahiri, Mr. Niladri Saha ... for the municipality.
Re: CAN No.4353 of 2018 This is an application made at the behest of the petitioner seeking modification of the order dated May 10, 2018.
Learned senior Advocate appearing for the applicant/petitioner submits that, there is a typographical error in the order dated May 10, 2018. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, the petitioner claims that, municipality is guilty of parking vehicles on the property of the petitioner. The order deals with such aspect. However, the order goes to say that the 2 unused vehicles are to be removed from the property "not" belonging to the petitioner. The word "not" is an error apparent on the face of the record. He seeks correction to such effect. Moreover, he submits that, there is no time frame fixed in such order within which municipality will dispose of the application. He submits that, as there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner could not make necessary application contemplated in such order before the municipality inasmuch as, his client apprehends that the municipality will take undue advantage of the error apparent on the face of the record.
Learned Advocate appearing for the municipality submits that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The municipality issued a notice subsequent to the order dated May 10, 2018 for the petitioner to appear before the Board of Councillors. In such meeting, the petitioner appeared and made an application for extension of time. He submits that, the application contemplated by the order dated May 10, 2018 has not been made till date by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of the municipality not acting 3 does not arise. He relies upon All India Reporter 1987 Supreme Court 943 (State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr.) and submits that, the miscellaneous application cannot be held to revive a disposed of writ petition.
The State is represented.
Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr.
(supra) is of the view that, when proceedings stands terminated by final disposal of the writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action.
In the present case, the application is for modification on the grounds noted above. There is an error apparent on the face of the record. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. (supra) does not prohibit correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the present application must be held to be maintainable.
The order dated May 10, 2018 is corrected by directing deleting the word "not" in the second last 4 paragraph of page 2 of such order.
The order dated May 10, 2018 directed the municipality to decide an application made by the petitioner after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, without specifying a time within which the same is to be disposed of. The petitioner is yet to make the application on the ground noted above. Be that as it may, the municipality will decide the application as directed by the order dated May 10, 2018 within a period of four weeks from the date of the petitioner making such application.
CAN No.4353 of 2018 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )