Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Arabinda De & Ors vs Uluberia Municipality & Ors on 31 August, 2022
31.08.2022
Item No.5
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 1227 of 2022
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022
Sri Arabinda De & Ors.
Vs
Uluberia Municipality & Ors.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee,
Ms. Trini Joarder,
...for the appellants.
Mr. Buddhadeb Ghoshal,
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh,
...for the respondent no. 3/writ
petitioner.
Mr. Gobinda Chandra Bandyopadhyay,
...for the Uluberia Municipality.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
stay application are taken up together for hearing.
This appeal is directed Against a judgment and
order dated July 7, 2022, whereby W.P.A. 18760 of
2019 was disposed of. The operative portion of the
said judgment and order reads as follows :-
"There is already a water
connection in the said premises.
The municipal authority is
accordingly directed to arrange for a
separate water line from the
existing water connection at the
portion of the premises which the
petitioner is occupying.
The aforesaid arrangement shall
be made subject to compliance of
necessary formalities by the
petitioner and upon payment of
such fees as may be directed to be
paid by the Municipality.
The Municipality shall intimate
the petitioner the requisite
formalities that are to be complied
with by him and the fees that is to
be paid by him within a period of
seven days from date.
Upon compliance of all
necessary formalities and upon
payment of the requisite fees, the
Municipality shall made
arrangement for providing the water
connection as indicated hereinabove
positively within a period of two
weeks thereafter.
The private respondents are
restrained from obstructing the men
and agents of the Municipality at
the time of giving the water
connection in favour of the
petitioner."
The writ petitioner and the present appellants
are co-owners of a particular property under the
jurisdiction of Uluberia Municipality. There are
various occupants of the property. The writ petitioner
approached the learned Single Judge with a grievance
that water supply to his portion was being interfered
with by the private respondents in the writ petition
who are the appellants herein. He prayed for an order
directing the Municipality to provide separate water
connection to the portion of the premises occupied by
him. The Municipality objected to such prayer. The
private respondents also strongly opposed such
prayer. However, the learned Single Judge disposed of
the writ petition by giving directions as noted above.
Being aggrieved, the private respondents have come up
in appeal.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants
says that an opportunity ought to have been given to
the respondents in the writ petition to file their
affidavits to bring on record the actual state of affairs.
There is, in fact, no interference with supply of water
to the portion of the premises occupied by the writ
petitioner. All the occupants of the said premises are
being supplied water through the water connection
that is admittedly there. At the highest, there may be
a dispute between the writ petitioner and the present
appellants which is purely civil in nature.
Learned advocate for the Municipality supports
the appellants and says that there is no scarcity of
water at the concerned premises and the writ
petitioner is getting adequate supply of water. Learned
advocate says that the Municipality should have been
permitted to file affidavit.
Since factual disputes are also there, we are of
the view that the parties should have been allowed to
file affidavits before the writ petition was disposed of.
Accordingly, without going into the merits of the
matter and without deciding anything on merits, we
remand the matter to the learned Single Judge having
determination to hear the matter afresh after exchange
of affidavits in the manner indicated hereafter.
The respondents in the writ petition will be at
liberty to file their affidavits-in-opposition within two
weeks from date. Reply, if any thereto, be filed within
a week thereafter.
The parties will be at liberty to request the
learned Single Judge to hear out and dispose of the
writ petition at an early date to the extent the business
of the Court may permit.
The order under appeal is set aside.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the
allegations contained in the stay petition are deemed
not to be admitted by the respondents.
The appeal being MAT 1227 of 2022 is,
accordingly, disposed of along with the application
being I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if
applied for, shall be given to the parties as
expeditiously as possible on compliance with all the
necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
