Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sekhar Sarkar vs Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors on 13 February, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
13.02.2018.
Item no. 8.
Court No. 19
ap W.P. No. 836 (W) of 2018
Sri Sekhar Sarkar
Versus
Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Prosenjit Burman,
Mr. Sovan Bera,
Mrs. Puja Beriwal,
Mr. A. Mitra.
...For the Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Bihani,
Mrs. Papiya Bihani.
...For the HMC.
Mr. Santu Chakraborty,
Mr. S. B. Mukherjee,
Mr. Abu Siddik Mallick.
...For the Respondent Nos.14 to 16.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging inaction on the part of the Howrah Municipal Corporation in taking steps for demolishing the unauthorized construction raised at the premises in question at the instance of the respondent nos.14 to
16. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation, on instruction, that on receipt of a 2 representation dated December 27, 2017 from the petitioner with regard to the alleged unauthorized construction at the premises in question, a notice was issued asking the parties to be present for giving an opportunity of hearing to them. It is also submitted by him that though the respondent no.16 was present at the time of hearing, the petitioner was absent.
The attention of this Court was drawn towards the amended plant filed by the petitioner before the Court of the learned 3rd Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Howrah in Title Suit No. 105 of 2014 to show that prayer has already been made in the above suit for restraining the above respondents from raising the unauthorized construction at the premises in question.
In view of the above submissions as also considering the address of the petitioner disclosed in the cause title to the effect that he has been residing in Delhi, this Court is of the opinion that there is no laches and/or negligence on the part of the Howrah Municipal Corporation to take steps in the matter of 3 alleged unauthorized construction at the premises in question.
Be that as it may, when a Civil Court is in seisin of the matter as recorded hereinabove, it is not permissible for the petitioner to avail of the benefit of parallel proceeding in two courts.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.)