Calcutta High Court
Amitava De Bhowmick And Anr vs The Kolkata Municipal ... on 17 August, 2023
OD-2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/67/2023
with
WPO/1144/2023
IA No. GA/1/2023
AMITAVA DE BHOWMICK AND ANR
VERSUS
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Date : 17th August, 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Abhimanyu Banerjee, Adv.
.. for the appellants.
Mr. Aloke Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Adv
Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv.
...for KMC.
Mr. Jit Ray, Adv.
Mr. Joydeep Dhar, Adv.
... for private respondents.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Adv.
For the State.
The Court : Report in the form of affidavit filed on behalf
of Kolkata Municipal Corporation be kept with the records.
By consent of the parties, the appeal being APO/67/2023
and the application being GA/1/2023 are taken up for hearing
together.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated May 18, 2023, whereby the appellants' writ petition being
WPO/1144/2023 was dismissed by a learned single Judge.
The writ petitioners had approached the learned single
Judge contending that in spite of complaints having been made
to Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC), intimating that
the private respondents have made unauthorised construction at
premises no. 52/1, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Ward No. 53,
Borough-VI, P. S. Taltala, Kolkata- 700 014, no action was taken
by KMC.
On the day the writ petition was taken up for hearing and
disposed of by the learned Judge, learned Advocate representing
the KMC submitted that he was yet to receive instruction in the
matter.
The learned Judge took on record written instruction
dated May 17, 2023, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala
Police Station, Kolkata, to the learned State Advocate. The
instruction was to the effect that the construction done at the
subject premises has been found to be in accordance with the
approved re-construction and demolition sketch plan. Such
instruction was given on the basis of a communication from the
Executive Engineer (C)/Building/Borough-VI, Building
Department, KMC to the Officer-in-Charge, Taltala Police Station.
Taking note of the aforesaid written instruction, learned
Judge came to the conclusion that the allegation of the writ
petitioners that the private respondents have made unauthorized
construction remains unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the learned
Judge dismissed the writ petition.
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners are before us by way
of this appeal. By our earlier orders, we had called for reports
from the KMC. Two reports have been filed. A further report in
the form of affidavit has been filed today.
The appellants contend that the concerned Executive
Engineer did not have the power or authority to sanction
reconstruction plan submitted by the private respondents. It is
further contended that the concerned Executive Engineer has not
even approved the reconstruction plan, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Ghosh, learned senior Counsel representing KMC
disputes the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants.
We are told that several representations have been made
by the appellants/writ petitioners to the competent officer in
KMC but the same have yielded no result. In view of the factual
disputes involved, we are of the opinion that a competent officer
of KMC should look into the matter.
We grant liberty to the appellants to make a fresh
comprehensive representation ventilating their grievance
addressed to the Director General (Building), KMC, being the
respondent no. 3, within a fortnight from date. The appellants
are also permitted to make a representation to the Director
General, Water Supply Department, KMC being the respondent
no.4, within a fortnight from date.
We direct the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein to take
reasoned decisions on the appellants' representations, in
accordance with law and the applicable rules and regulations,
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of
this order, after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants
and the private respondents or their authorised representatives.
If the respondent nos. 3 and 4 find merit in the grievance of the
appellants/writ petitioners, appropriate action will be taken in
accordance with law.
We have not gone into the merits of the disputes between
the parties. The respondent nos.3 and 4 will take informed
decisions in accordance with law.
The appeal and the connected application are disposed of.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations
made in the application are deemed not to have been admitted by
the respondents.
[ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.]
[APURBA SINHA RAY, J.]
dg/
