Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application Under Article 226 Of The vs K. C. Das Private Ltd on 14 March, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W. P. No. 4695 (W) of 2011
In the matter of : An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
And
In the matter of : K. C. Das Private Ltd.
... Petitioner.
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
... Respondents.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, Mr. Santimoy Panda, Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil For the State-respdts.: Mr. Prasenjit Basu, Mr. K. N. Nabi ah (25) 14.03.2011 In the writ-petition, the petitioner, a private limited company, has challenged the notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 dated 15th February, 2011 issued by the Competent Authority, Kolkata, the respondent No.2, under the Act whereunder the petitioner has been directed to hand over the possession of the premises on the ground that though an appeal has been preferred under Section 33 of the Act before the appellate authority challenging the Notification dated 7th December, 2010 and an application for stay of the impugned order has been filed, however, ignoring the appeal and the application, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notification and are going to take possession of the concerned premises on 18th March, 2011. 2 Submission has been made that since the appeal and the application have been filed, the respondent authorities should have either withheld themselves from issuing the impugned notification or the appellate authority should have disposed of the appeal and the application on merit after giving an opportunity of hearing. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities submits that the action of the respondents is just.
Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal and an application for stay of the impugned notification in connection therewith and those are pending. In my view, since appeal and application for stay are pending, the respondents should be restrained from implementing the impugned notice dated 15th February, 2011 since any action taken by the respondents shall render the appeal and the application infructuous. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority, the respondent No.2, not to give effect to the impugned notice dated 15th February, 2011, being annexure - "P/10" of the writ petition, issued by the respondent No.2 till the appeal and the application are disposed of by the appellate authority. Since I find that the appeal and the application for stay are pending, the 3 appellate authority shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said appeal and the application as early as possible preferably by 1st July, 2011.
The writ-petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observation without any order as to costs. Since this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling upon the respondents to file affidavits, allegations made are deemed not to have been admitted by them.
( SOUMITRA PAL, J. )