Sri Sanjib Kumar Roy vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 60 Tri

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                            W.P.(C) No.349 of 2018

     Sri Sanjib Kumar Roy,
     son of Ramendra Narayan Roy,
     resident of Dhaleswar, P.O. Dhaleswar,
     P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura

                                                     ............ Petitioner (s)

                                  -Versus-


1.   The State of Tripura,
     to be represented by the
     Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
     Urban Development Department,
     New Secretariat Building,
     New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
     Agartala, West Tripura, PIN:799 010
2.   Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     to be represented by the
     Municipal Commissioner,
     Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     City Centre, Paradise Chowmohani,
     Agartala, PIN:799 001
3.   The Municipal Commissioner,
     Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     City Centre, Paradise Chowmohani,
     Agartala, PIN:799 001
4.   The Director,
     Urban Development Department,
     Gorkhabasti, Kunjaban,
     Agartala, West Tripura,
     PIN:799 006
5.   The Assistant Municipal Commissioner,
     formerly Executive Officer,
     Agartala Municipal Corporation,
     City Centre, Paradise Chowmohani,
     Agartala, PIN: 799 001

                                                 ............ Respondent (s)

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. A. K. Pal, Adv.

For the Respondent (s) : Mr. K. K. Pal, Adv.

Date of hearing & delivery      :      11.01.2021
of Judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting       :      NO

                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                     JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Heard Mr. A. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. K. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents No.2, 3 and 5. None appears for the remaining

respondents.

[2] A short question that falls for consideration in this petition

filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

whether the order dated 15.01.2014 [Annexure-G to the writ

petition] has been passed arbitrarily. The order dated 15.01.2014

reproduced in full, is hereunder:

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CENTRAL ZONE

No.10/Touki/AMC/07/899-906 Dated, 15th January 2014

To Sri Subhrajyati Shil (on behalf of Sanjib Kr. Roy) Children Park, Agt.

Sub:- Cancellation for permission of 3-D show at Children Par, Agt.

Sir, As per decision of Agartala Municipal Council the permission of 3-D show at Children Part were issued vide our letter no F.1 41/15/AMC/99 2000/ Dated 04/12/2004 is hereby treated cancelled.

Yours faithfully Executive Officer Sd/- Illegible Agartala Municipal Council Central Zone Copy to:-

1. P.A. to Hon'ble Chairperson, AMC for kind information of the Hon'ble Chairperson Pl.

2.The C.E.O. AMC for kind information pl.

3.E.E. Div-I, AMC for kind information & n/action pl.

4.The Health Officer, AMC for information & n/action pl.

5. Asstt Eng. SD-IV for information & n/action pl.

6.In-Charge Task force, AMC for information & take n/action.

Yours faithfully Executive Officer Sd/- Illegible Agartala Municipal Council Central Zone

[3] Mr. Pal, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner

and other two persons were given permission to run 3D theatre

show in the Agartala Municipal Corporation shed at Children Park

with effect from 16.12.2004, initially for three months and

thereafter, the petitioners and others continued in the said shed and

ran the 3 D show on payment of requisite licence fee and lastly the

license fee was paid on 02.01.2014. According to Mr. Pal, learned

counsel for the petitioner no show-cause was issued to the petitioner

despite the fact that he was continuing in the said shed by way of

sufferance and hence, the order dated 15.01.2014 is grossly

arbitrary. as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.

[4] Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Agartala

Municipal Corporation has submitted that the writ petition is hit by

delay and laches as the impugned order was passed on 15.01.2014

whereas the writ petition had been filed on 04.04.2018, after more

than four years. That apart, the said permission was granted in

favour of three persons including the petitioner and thus, the

petitioner does not have locus-standi alone to carry out the

challange.

[5] Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the Agartala Municipal

Corporation has submitted that by the Touji Rules, a forum has been

created to challenge any order cancelling the touji within seven

days. The petitioner might carry out such challenge but did not carry

out any challenge to the Chairman (or the Mayor or the Municipal

Administrator) within the stipulated time. Hence, this writ petition is

liable to be shot down without further consideration. There cannot

be any different opinion that this writ petition is seriously hit by

latches and for not availing the efficacious remedy as provided by

the Rule 8(b) of Touji Rules, Agartala Municipal Council (now

Agartala Municipal Corporation).

[6] Having observed thus, this writ petition stands dismissed.

However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Municipal

Administrator to restore his touji for 3 D show. Having considered

the relevant facts, the appropriate order be passed by the

Administration within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date when

such application will be made. The petitioner shall file such

application within 15(fifteen) days from this day.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Moumita