Tripura High Court
For vs For on 14 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A.No.97 of 2022
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
14.12.2022
Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. This is an intra court appeal filed by the appellant for assailing
the judgment and order dated 25.03.2022 passed in WP(C)No.02/2022 by
the learned Single Judge. The case of the petitioner is that respondents
No.1 to 6 filed a writ petition bearing WP(C)No.02/2022 being aggrieved
with the notice dated 03.01.2022 whereby the respondents No.1 to 6 were
asked to remove illegal encroachment from government land under Section
107 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. The respondents No.1 to 6 projected
a case that the respondent No.1 is running a Jewellary shop, the respondent
No.2 is also running a jewellery shop, the respondent No.3 is running the
business of Xerox business, the respondents No.4 and 5 is also running the
same business as that of respondent No.3 and the respondent No.6 is
running a steel furniture business.
3. The writ petitioner has contended that the AMC has taken
initiative to evict the writ petitioners from the Government land which is
encroached by the writ petitioners but the writ petitioners are doing
business in those shop premises under license issued by AMC for many
years. The appellants being the respondents No.1 to 3 has contended
before the learned Single Judge that Section 107 of the Tripura Municipal
Act, 1994 does not mandate any notice or opportunity of hearing to be
afforded before any action is taken under the said provision.
4. It was an admitted position before the learned Single Judge
that the respondents No.1 to 6 were encroachers of Government land and
upon encroachment of the Government land, the respondents No.1 to 6
were carrying on business. The learned Single Judge held that although
there is no provision to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing under
Section 107 of the Tripura Municipality Act, 1994 but affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing is a part of human right and a cherished principle of
Justice.
5. The learned single Jude has held that although there is no
provision to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 107 of
the Tripura Municipality Act, 1994 but affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing is a part of human right and a cherished principle of Justice. In a
catena of decision of the apex court it has been held that authority must
provide reasonable opportunity of hearing before any contemplated action
and accordingly the learned Single Judge set aside the notice dated
03.01.2022 with a direction to the appellant to provide substantive
opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge has
further observed that the writ petitioners be given a reasonable opportunity
to produce the records to show their right if any, over the place or shop or
any other right emanating from the statue or the Constitution. After such
exercise, the appellant have been directed to pass appropriate orders and
till then, the Agartala Municipal Corporation has been restrained from
evicting the writ petitioners.
6. Having heard both sides, this court is of the considered opinion
that the order of the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly. The
Agartala Municipal Corporation shall issue notice to the respondent writ
petitioners and take steps for eviction in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, this appeal is disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Sabyasachi B
