Anjit Miah vs Agartala Municipal Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 1060 Tri

                                                    Page 1 of 7



                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                   WA NO.259 OF 2021

1. Anjit Miah,
S/o- Nur Mohammad, North Rajnagar,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001, Age-41.

2. Sohell Hossain,
S/o- Farid Miah, R/o-Ward No.10,
West Joynagar, Rajnagar, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799001, Age-34.

3. Sri Dilip Kumar De,
S/o- Lt. Balaram De, NBRC Para,
Bardowali, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799003, Age-63.

4. Sri Dilip Deb,
S/o- Lt. Subodh Chandra Deb, Bardowali,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799033, Age-65 years.

5. Sri Anirban De,
S/o. Nilmani Dey, NBRC Para Bardowali Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799003, Age-53 years.

6. Sri Santosh Debnath,
S/o- Lt. Harimohan Debnath, Bhatta pukur,
Howrah, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799003, Age-58 years.

7. Mihir Miah,
S/o Lt. Rahim Miah, Rajnagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799001, Age-62 years.

8. Sri Susanta Dey,
S/o- Lt. Ram Mani Dey, Milan Chakra
Badharghar, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799003, Age-51 years.

                                  ---- Appellant(s).
                          Versus
1. Agartala Municipal Corporation
To be represented by the Commissioner,
Agartala Municipal Corporation, Paradise Chowmuhani,

   Page 1 of 7
                                                       Page 2 of 7



Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.

2. The Municipal Commissioner,
Agartala Municipal Corporation, Paradise Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.

3. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner,
North Zone, Agartala Municipal Corporation,
Paradise Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799001.

4. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-
799001.
                                    -----Respondent(s).

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.

Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.

Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.

Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate.

Date of hearing             : 06.12.2022.

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order            : 13.12.2022.

Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.


        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
                        JUDGMENT & ORDER
CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)

This is an appeal filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Chapter V A Rule 2(2) of the

Gauhati High Court Rules, as applicable, against the Order,

dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in

WP(C) No. 74 of 2021.

2. The brief fact of this instant case is that all the

appellants herein are bamboo merchants. They were selling

bamboos occupying land, which is the bank of river Howrah

near Jahwar Bridge, within the Agartala Municipal Corporation

(for short, AMC) area. Having felt environmental hazard and

to undertake development works restoring the damage

suffered by the said river, the State-respondents as well the

AMC asked the bamboo merchants i.e. the appellants, to shift

their business of selling bamboos to other place(s). The

appellants demanded some lands from the government itself.

Dispute arose when the respondents tried to evict the

appellants from the land occupied by them on the bank of

river Howrah. Being aggrieved by such eviction process, the

appellants have approached the learned Single Bench of this

Court by filing the Writ Petition No.74 of 2021. In the writ

petition, the appellant herein sought necessary direction to

rehabilitee the appellants herein in a suitable place and to

quash the orders, dated 02.12.2021 issued by the Municipal

Commissioner, AMC. As an interim measure, the learned

Single Judge granted protection to the appellants by staying

the operations of the orders dated 02.02.2021 during the

pendency of the said writ petition

3. Ultimately, Learned Single Judge vide order dated

07.09.2021 dismissed the said petition. The operative portion

of the impugned order is as under:-

"9. Accordingly, I direct the petitioners to shift their bamboo business to the place, as proposed by the State-respondents including the AMC. They have no right to claim to run their business from the bank of river Howrah causing its serious damage, which shall further lead to damage of the life and properties of the residents at Agartala and other areas. The petitioners shall positively shift their business from the present place of their business i.e. bank of river Howrah within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. The AMC is directed to cancel the license of the respective petitioners after expiry of 30 days, if they do not shift their place of business from the bank of river Howrah.

Hence, this instant appeal.

4. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by

Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

herein argued that the appellants being the street vendors,

who are carrying on business at Bamboo Market near Battala

Howrah Bridge, cannot be ousted from the Agartala City and

asked to shift their business to the place which is beyond the

city limit. The said area is situated in an area that is not

frequented by the common people. The learned Single Judge

failed to consider that the appellants are entitled to

rehabilitation in a convenient and suitable place that is

accessed by the common people. The proposed site is not at

all convenient for the business of the appellants as it is not a

marketplace and it is not frequented by the common people.

Stating thus, learned Sr. Counsel urged this Court to allow

this instant appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated

07.09.2021.

5. Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for

respondents AMC, and Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A.,

appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the

appellants herein are not having valid licenses to run the said

business and their activities in the bank of river Howrah are

causing environmental hazard and damaging the river. The

said business is situated in a busy area of the city and

obstructs the normal function of the city. Stating this, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents urged to dismiss this

instant appeal.

6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on

record.

7. The license of appellant No.1 is valid up to 31st

March, 2021, the license of appellant No.2 is valid up to 31

March 2020, the license of appellant No.3 is valid up to 31st

March 2020, the license of appellant No.4 is valid up to 31st

March 2014, the license of appellant No.5 is valid up to 31st

March 2020, the license of appellant No.6 is valid up to 31st

March 2014, the license of appellant No.7 is valid up to 31st

March 2015 and the license of appellant No.8 is valid up to

31st March, 2020. After the expiry of the license period, there

is no deemed provision enabling right to continue the

business. The licenses granted have been expired by efflux of

time. They are treated to be encroachers on the Government

land. More so on the embankment of the Howrah River, there

cannot be any activity, and change of nature of the land is

also not permissible. So alternative site is allotted by

Government in Industrial area and they are expected to go

and occupy the same. Since they are in possession of the said

land for the last several years, this Court considers that some

reasonable time may be given for them to shift. This

particular change in developing the Howrah river bed,

maintaining its natural form, increasing its beauty, and

shifting the Bamboo market yard from City to the outskirts, is

a change and whenever there is a change some hardship is

likely to happen but it cannot confer any right for

unauthorised and permanent stay in a Government land. The

rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which

has been conferred for conducting business have not been

infringed, they are protected and at the same time, it is the

responsibility and duty of the appellants also herein to

cooperate with the changes and for development of the State.

8. Earlier, also due to the intervention of this Court, the

appellants continued their stay. Accordingly, 2(two) months'

time is granted to the appellants for vacating and handing

over the said premises. This Court makes it clear that no

further time will be granted for vacating the said premises.

9. Accordingly this instant writ appeal stands

dismissed and consequently, pending application(s), if any,

also stands closed.

           JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)


suhanjit