Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Khokon Roy vs The Asansol-Durgapur Development on 7 February, 2018

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

February 07,
  2018
   R.C.


                W.P. 2097 (W) OF 2018

                   Khokon Roy
                       Vs.
               The Asansol-Durgapur Development
               Authority & Ors.
                      =-=-=-=-=-

         Mr.PinakiChakraborty
         Mr.amal Kumar Banerjee,
                   ...for Petitioner

         Mr.SharanyaChatterjee,
                   ...for ADDA

                 A show cause notice dated June 2, 2017 is under challenge in the
         present writ petition.
                 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner
         was called for a hearing by a writing dated April 17, 2017 with regard to
         a shop room. The notice dated April 17, 2017 did not specify any
         ground for issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner had
         appeared. Subsequently, the first respondent had issued the notice

dated June 2, 2017 requiring the petitioner to vacate the stall on June 6, 2017. The stall has been since taken possession of by the first respondent. The petitioner had made a representation to the Chairman which is required to be decided.

The first respondent is represented. Learned advocate for the first respondent submits that, the period for the licence had expired by efflux of time. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before passing an order of eviction.

It appears that, the petitioner was enjoying a stall under a licence. The time period of such licence had expired. The authorities had initiated proceedings for eviction. The petitioner was heard. By the order dated June 2, 2017 the petitioner was required to vacate the stall on June 6, 2017. The first respondent has subsequently taken possession of the stall concerned.

No law is cited to suggest that, the Chairman has any authority to sit in appeal over a decision taken by the first respondent. Consequently, no fruitful purpose would be subserved by requiring the Chairman to consider the so-called representation In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

W.P. 2097 (W) OF 2018 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )