Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rsp Green Development & Laboratories ... vs Howrah Municipal Corporation & Others on 10 May, 2024
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
10.05.2024
Item No. 3.
Court No.6.
AB
M.A.T. 866 of 2024
With
CAN 1 of 2024
CAN 2 of 2024
RSP Green Development & Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Vs
Howrah Municipal Corporation & Others
Mr. Mukteswar Maity,
Mr. Rafiqul Islam,
Ms. Manika Sarkar,
Ms. Nupur Chaudhuri ....for the Appellant.
Mr. Sandipan Banerjee,
Mr. Santanu Chatterjee,
Mr. Sobhan Majumdar .....for the HMC.
Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly
....for the Respondent No.7 to 12.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today, be kept with the records.
In re : IA CAN 1 of 2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 253 days in filing the appeal. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is condoned.
I A CAN 1 of 2024 is, accordingly, disposed of. In re : MAT 866 of 2024, IA CAN 2 of 2024 A judgment and order dated July 12, 2023, whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of two writ petitions, being WPA 8817 of 2023 (Arindam Basu & Ors. Vs HMC & Ors.) and WPA 12703 of 2023 (Atanu Bose Vs HMC & Ors.), is the subject matter of 2 challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the respondent no.7 in WPA 8817 of 2023.
WPA 8817 of 2023 was filed by Arindam Basu & Others (collectively referred to as Arindam) for implementation of a demolition order issued by Howrah Municipal Corporation (in short "HMC") on April 7, 2022. The order was passed in respect of unauthorized construction raised by one Atanu Bose (in short Atanu) on the roof of premises no.7/F, Dinobandhu Mukherjee Lane, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah. Arindam is the owner of the ground floor of the said premises.
Atanu filed WPA 12703 of 2023 challenging the order of demolition issued by HMC.
The learned Single Judge recorded the submission made on behalf of HMC that the impugned construction is unauthorized and has suffered a demolition order. The learned Judge also recorded that initially, HMC had allowed retention of certain portions of the unauthorized construction by accepting retention fees in December, 2017. However, other unauthorized constructions have been made. The learned Judge disposed of WPA 12703 of 2023 with the following direction:
"The petitioner Atanu Bose is directed to take steps for immediate removal of the unauthorized construction at his own cost.
In the event the petitioner fails to remove the construction within 31st July, 2023, it will be open for the 3 Howrah Municipal Corporation to demolish the unauthorized construction and recover the cost of demolition from the petitioner".
Insofar as Arindam's writ petition is concerned, the learned Judge observed that in view of the order passed in the other writ petition, the unauthorized construction is liable to be demolished by the person responsible i.e. Atanu Bose by July 31, 2023. In default, HMC shall proceed to demolish the unauthorized construction. The learned Judge directed the Officer in-charge of the concerned Police Station to render all necessary help and assistance to the men and agents of HMC at the time of vacating the unauthorized portion of the concerned premises and implementing the order of demolition.
Being aggrieved, the respondent no.7 in Arindam's writ petition has come up by way of this appeal.
Learned Advocate for the appellant says that his client carries on business on the third floor of the premises in question as also on a part of the roof where alleged unauthorized construction has been made. He says that notice of hearing dated December 22, 2021, was served on his client by HMC in connection with a demolition case initiated in respect of the alleged illegal construction. His client participated in the hearing. No order of demolition was ever served on or communicated to the appellant or its 4 officers. Secondly, he says that it would appear from the order of the learned Single Judge itself that the alleged unauthorized construction was regularized by HMC upon payment of retention fees by the appellant. Therefore, there can be no question of demolition of such structure. His client will be greatly prejudiced if the impugned structure is removed.
Learned Advocate for the appellant further says that HMC has nowhere indicated as to what alleged unauthorized construction has been made after retention was initially allowed by HMC.
We are surprised that a demolition order passed by HMC on April 7, 2022, i.e. more than two years ago, has still not been implemented by HMC. Arindam had to approach the learned Single Judge to obtain an order for implementation of the demolition order. The learned Single Judge directed implementation of the demolition order on July 12, 2023, i.e. about ten months ago. Still, the unauthorized structure has not been demolished. If this is how officers or employees of a statutory authority function, then very bad days are ahead of us. Illegal structures must be dealt with strictly. Reckless citizens having no regard for law raise illegal constructions more often than not, for pecuniary gains. This must be stopped.
As regards the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, we find absolutely no merit therein. 5 HMC says that it has communicated the demolition order to the appellant. Assuming that it has not done so, HMC shall forthwith and in any event within a week from date communicate the demolition order to the appellant.
As regards retention of the unauthorized structures, the learned Judge has recorded that initially, retention of a part of the unauthorized construction was permitted. However, time and again the person responsible has made unauthorized construction. In any event, the appellant is not the person responsible and cannot have much to say about the illegal structures. Atanu has not approached us challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.
In view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. This appeal is completely meritless and on the verge of being frivolous. The appeal and the connected application are dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to High Court Legal Services Authority within a fortnight from date.
The department shall forward a copy of this order to the Member Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority, who shall draw to our attention failure, if any, on the part of the appellant to pay the costs as directed above.
6
Let this matter be listed again under the heading "To Be Mentioned" on 24.05.2024 only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the costs have been paid by the appellant.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance with all the necessary formalities.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)