Pratap Debnath vs The Kolkata Municipal
2023 Latest Caselaw 1129 Cal/2

                                                                               OD-2


                           APOT /138/2023
                           I A. GA/1/2023
                           WPO/934/2023
                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                               Original Side


                                        PRATAP DEBNATH.
                                            -Versus-
                                        THE   KOLKATA   MUNICIPAL
                                        CORPORATION AND ORS.

                                                                          Appearance:
                                              Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Advocate,
                                                          Ms. Amrita Dey, Advocate
                                                                  ...for the Appellant
                                                         Mr. Srijan Nayek, Advocate
                                                      Mr. D. Chakraborty, Advocate
                                                 for Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY

Date: May 03, 2023.

          THE COURT: A judgment and order dated April 26, 2023,

whereby the appellant's writ petition being WPO No. 934 of 2023

was disposed of, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.


          Challenging a notice under section 401(stop work) of the

Kolkata     Municipal   Corporation       Act,     1980,       the      appellant

approached the learned single Judge. The appellant prayed that
                                   2


proceeding under section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980 should be

initiated after service of notice under section 401 of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. In support of such submission,

the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Sri Prahlad Singh

Jaggi & Ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors reported in

(2017) 4 Cal LT 564 (HC).


       The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with the

observation that " in the present case, it appears that unauthorised

construction has been detected. Concerned officer of the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation shall take necessary steps in the matter in

accordance with law."


       The writ petitioner has come up by way of this appeal with

the apprehension that the order is not clear enough. It should be

clarified that no immediate coercive action may be taken.

Proceedings under Section 400(1) of 1980 Act should be initiated

and taken to its logical conclusion. Only thereafter the Corporation

can take any further step in the matter.


       Mr. Nayek, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation

says that he has instruction that notice under section 400(1) of

1980 Act will be issued to the appellant.
                                  3


       In that view of the matter, there is no further reason for the

appellant to apprehend anything untoward.


       Needless to say, till the conclusion of the proceedings under

section 400(1), in accordance with law, no coercive steps not

contemplated by law can be taken by the Corporation against the

appellant.


       Both the appeal and the application are, accordingly,

disposed of.


       Since no affidavit is called for, the allegations made in the

stay petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the

respondents.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)

dg/