Anushree Giri (Karan) vs Siddhartha Maity & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 383 Cal

   04
13.01.2023
                                 C.P.A.N. 525 of 2021
kaushik                              in
                              WPA 25371 of 2017

                                   Anushree Giri (Karan)
                                            Vs.
                                  Siddhartha Maity & Ors.

             Mr. Soumen Dutta
             Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya
                               ... for the petitioner.

             Mr. Probal Sarkar
                                 ... for the pvt. Respondent in the original

suit.

Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee Mr. Nilanjan Adhikary ... for the Contai Municipality.

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court be taken on

record.

Municipality and the private opposite party in the

writ petition are represented.

Leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-

record for the petitioner to incorporate the present

incumbents in the Municipality.

The writ petition was filed complaining that, the

private opposite party was acting in breach of an order passed

by the appeal Court on November 10, 2014.

There were two civil suits. An appeal was

preferred in one of the civil suits. The appeal Court passed an

order on November 10, 2014. The relevant portion of the

order was quoted in the order dated July 19, 2018 passed in

the writ petition.

The order dated July 19, 2018, after noting the

direction of the appeal Court, restrained the Municipality

from granting any sanction of any building plan that may be

filed by the private respondent in respect of properties

involved in the civil suits till the disposal of the civil suits.

An appeal was carried from the order dated July

19, 2018. Such appeal being MAT 993 of 2018 was disposed of

by a judgment and order dated June 13, 2019. The appeal

Court held as follows:

"After hearing the learned advocates for the parties

and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we do

not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity in the

impugned judgment and order which would warrant any

interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. That

apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is

supported with cogent and justifiable reasons.

However, we are of the view that notwithstanding the

observations made by the Court in the impugned judgment

and order, the same shall not preclude the concerned

Municipality from issuing and/or receiving the "A" & "B" form

from the appellant since mere issuance of such form or

receipt thereof does not confer any right upon the appellant

to make any construction de hors a duly sanctioned plan

which has to be obtained in accordance with law in the light

of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned judgment and order dated 19th July, 2018.

With the above observation, the appeal and the

application for stay stand disposed of."

The appeal, which was noticed in the order dated

July 19, 2023 is still pending.

There is a sanction plan bearing plan no. 311/20-21

dated March 3, 2021 granted by the Municipality.

The Court is informed that construction in terms

of such sanctioned plan is continuing as on date. According to

the Municipality, the sanction was granted in respect of an

immovable property, which is not the subject matter of the

properties in the civil suits.

Two civil suits are involved.

The appeal in which, the order dated November 14,

2014 was passed, records the stand of the Municipality. Then,

the Municipality took the stand that, they were not acting

upon the application of the private respondent for sanction

and that, they would abide by the outcome of the civil suit.

In such view, it would be appropriate to direct the

Municipality to disclose the name of the persons, who

sanctioned the plan on March 3, 2021 to the learned advocate

for the contempt petitioner within 72 hours from now.

Thereafter, the learned advocate-on-record for the contempt

petitioner will add such persons as a party-respondents in the

contempt petition. In addition thereto, leave is granted to the

contempt petitioner to add such other parties, who are

responsible in violating the order dated July 19, 2018.

The Officer-in-Charge of the local police station is

directed to ensure that no construction takes place at the

site. He will take photographs of the existing construction.

List the application on January 20, 2023.

Petitioner will serve a copy of the contempt

application on the added contemnors. Petitioner will serve a

copy of this order on the police for compliance.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)