Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Md. Ayub & Anr vs The Municipal Commissioner on 2 March, 2016
While there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law as laid
down by two Division Bench judgments referred to and relied upon by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 19th
September, 2016, on the question of the authority of Commissioner of Kolkata
Municipal Corporation to delegate his power to a Special Officer to hear
demolition cases, one vital factual aspect was required to be taken notice of
and that is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the
Special Officer concerned was delegated with such powers by the
Commissioner of Kolkata Municipal Corporation or not? This aspect of the
matter was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and on
this ground alone the impugned judgment and order cannot stand the test of
scrutiny in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. The judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge, therefore, is liable to set aside and is, accordingly, set
aside.
Sachindra Nath Karmakar vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 19 September, 2016
The appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge
on 19th September, 2016 in WP No.793 of 2016 [Sachindra Nath Karmakar vs.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.]. The appellant before us is the
respondent no.4 in the writ proceeding who chose not to appear when the
matter was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge. The writ
2
petitioner, Sachindra Nath Karmakar, challenged an order passed by the
Municipal Building Tribunal (being a statutory Tribunal). On 4th February,
2016, the Municipal Building Tribunal had allowed the statutory appeal of the
respondent no.4 on a technical point. It said that the Special Officer had no
jurisdiction to pass the demolition order. The jurisdiction to pass the
demolition order was with the Commissioner. He could not have delegated his
authority.
1