Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

In Re: Raju Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 April, 2019

Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                                             1

     24.04.19
    Item No.46
    Court No.15
    Krishnendu

    W.P. No. 6118 (W) of 2019

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 14.03.2019;
                  And
In re: Raju Ghosh
         - Versus -
    The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Saranya Chatterjee
Mr. Avishek Bhandari
              For the Petitioner
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick
Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy
             For the State
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee
Ms. T. Dasgupta
              For the K.M.C.


       Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

       Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the

petitioner submitted an application for mutation pertaining to premises no. 80, Raja

Dinendra Nath Street, Kolkata- 700 006 along with the requisite fees on 14th September,

2016. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no. 2 by a memo dated 16th December, 2016

requested the respondent no. 5 "to confirm whether the premises is under the purview of Controller of Kolkata Thika Tenancy, i.e. whether it is a Thika premises or not, and also to communicate to the undersigned your consent or objection for disposing the application under reference accordingly mutation/ separation/ apportionment in the name of applicant(s) as Thika Tenant(s). It is further requested to confirm quantum of land area occupied by the applicant(s). In case there is existence of other thika tenants pertaining to premises in question , names of such thika tenants along with quantum of land area may please be communicated also". As thereafter no further steps were 2 taken, the petitioner submitted an application under section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the said Act of 2005) and in response to the same, it was intimated from the office of the Controller of Kolkata Thika Tenancy by a memo dated 19th May, 2017 that pertaining to the concerned premises, no claim for thika tenancy determination is pending.

Mr. Chatterjee further submits that upon intimation of such fact to the K.M.C. authorities, the respondent no. 2 by a further memo dated 8th November, 2017 requested the respondent no. 5 to furnish his dues. Even thereafter, no steps were taken and the petitioner's claim was kept pending. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no. 3 on 2nd July, 2018 but the same has also not been considered. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the K.M.C. submits that the respondent no. 5 is yet to receive a reply to the letters dated 16th December, 2016 and 8th November, 2017 from the respondent no. 5 and as such no final decision could be taken.

Under such circumstances, this Court directs the respondent no. 5 to furnish the information, as sought for by the letters dated 16th December, 2016 and 8th November, 2017, to the respondent no. 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Upon receipt of such details from the respondent no. 5 , the respondent no. 2 shall take a final decision on the petitioner's application for mutation within a period of four weeks thereafter upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties , if any, and to communicate such decision to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 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 upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)