Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ajit Kumar Roy Alias Ajit Roy vs Asansol Muncipal Corporation & Others on 27 July, 2016
1
281 27.07.201 W.P. 25664 (W) of 2015
BD
6.
Ajit Kumar Roy alias Ajit Roy
Vs
Asansol Muncipal Corporation & Others
Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee.
... For Petitioner
Mr. Apurba Kumar Dutta.
... For Private Respondent
Mr. Hirmanmoy Bhattacharya.
... For Respondent-Corporation Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The petitioner alleges that the private respondent has been making an unauthorised construction which has been very stoutly denied by the learned advocate representing the private respondent. According to the private respondent the construction had been existing for quite some time. Only certain patch work and painting of the building have been done by the private respondent.
I expected a compete report from Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate for the Asansol Municipal Corporation. Even though the writ petition was filed on September 30, 2015 after the lapse of about ten months he has no clue to the matter. In view of the allegations and counter-allegations I find no point in keeping the writ petition pending. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the appropriate authority of the Asansol Municipal Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2 September 15, 2015 which has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure P-3. The appropriate authority shall ignore the description of the addressee and shall proceed with the matter and shall dispose of the representation as if it has been addressed to him. In case the Corporation is of the view that there is any truth in the allegation made by the petitioner, the authorities of the Corporation shall pass necessary and consequential orders. In the event the respondent- Corporation is of the view that the private respondent has not indulged in any unauthorised construction or has not violated the provision of law in doing the alleged works of repair he shall reject the representation by a reasoned order and shall communicate the same to the petitioner. The appropriate authority of the Corporation shall also undertake an inspection before he disposes of the same.
The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.
Since the writ petition is disposed of without calling for the affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.) 3