Imtiyaz Ahamed vs The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4469 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Imtiyaz Ahamed vs The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation ... on 2 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 05




              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
                And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

                            M.A.T. 1066 of 2024
                                (CAN 1 of 2024)

                            Imtiyaz Ahamed
                                 -Vs-
              The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.


For the Appellant       :      Mr. Jagannath Ganguly, Adv.,
                               Mr. Muhammad Jawwad, Adv.


For the BMC             :      Mr. Akra Kumar Nag, Adv,
                               Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Adv.

For the Respondent

No.8/Writ Petitioner : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Bratati Pramanick, Adv.

Heard on                :      02.09.2024

Judgment on             :      02.09.2024

Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

1. Appellant had constructed a G+4 storied structure without sanction

plan. By order dated 03.04.2024 the Hon'ble Single Judge, inter

alia, directed to take steps against the appellant for acting contrary

to the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006) and the West Bengal

Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993). The

occupants of the construction in question were directed to vacate

the property. Electricity connection as well as the water supply to

the property were also directed to be disconnected. Appellant was

directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 crore with the learned Registrar

General as security deposit to replenish the loss suffered by the

occupiers who were induced to purchase flats in the unauthorized

building. Appellant was also directed to submit affidavits disclosing

lists of assets including bank account and income tax details. He

was restrained from making any further construction or from

selling/transferring or alienating his personal properties without

the leave of the Court. The order was carried in appeal and a

Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench in MAT 690 of 2024 did not interfere

with the aforesaid directions save and except directing the appellant

may be heard by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 266 of

the Act of 2006 before necessary order is passed.

2. We are informed appellant was heard and demolition order was

passed. Demolition order was placed before the Hon'ble Single

Judge and the Hon'ble Judge after considering the said demolition

order, by order dated 18.04.2024 passed various directions and

refused to modify the earlier direction with regard to deposit of Rs.1

crore as security deposit. Finally by order dated 13.05.2024 the

Hon'ble Single Judge issued a Contempt Rule as the said security

deposit had not been made.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits order directing deposit

of Rs.1 crore is exproportionate and the Hon'ble Judge was not

justified in issuing the Contempt Rule.

4. We note the aforesaid direction with regard to monetary deposit has

already been affirmed in MAT 690 of 2024. Due to non-compliance

of such directions, contempt rule has been issued. It is open to the

appellant to respond to the rule before the Hon'ble Single Judge.

There is no scope to interfere with the order impugned.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

6. Consequently, connected application is also dismissed.

7. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to

the parties on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)                               (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)


as