Tripura High Court
Sri Sujit Kumar Sen vs The Chief Executive Officer on 26 April, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.127/2022
Sri Sujit Kumar Sen
.........Appellant(s).
VERSUS
The Chief Executive Officer, Kailashahar Municipal Council & another
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Alik Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
26/04/2023
Heard Mr. Alik Das, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2022 passed in WP(C)
No.484 of 2022, the learned Writ Court has refused to interfere in the matter
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while observing that the
petitioner would have a more effective remedy before the Civil Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Petitioner is a resident of Kailashahar and owner of property in
Khatian No.4370 under Mouja-Kailashahar, Sub-Division and T.K.-
Kailashahar, Revenue Circle-Kailashahar, vide Sabek Dag No.2561(P), Hal
Dag No.2792/10347, 2793/10338, of Bastu Nal class of land. He has
approached the Writ Court on alleged inaction of the Kailashahar Municipal
Council in taking adequate action in respect of the violations made by the
respondent No.2 in his permanent building which was made in violation of
the Tripura Building Rules, 2004. According to the petitioner, the official
respondents did not heed to the representation filed by the petitioner and,
therefore, he has been compelled to approach the Writ Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the grounds
taken before the Writ Court which primarily are regarding inaction on the
part of the statutory authority in taking steps in respect of the building plan
violations committed by the respondent No.2 under the Tripura Building
Rules, 2004 allegedly not maintaining necessary space for the setoff area.
5. Learned Single Judge, however, found that the issue involves
disputed questions of fact which can be properly agitated before a competent
Court of civil jurisdiction if necessary through evidence by the parties.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going
through the Writ records and on perusal of the impugned judgment, we do
not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge. Indeed, the
grievance of the petitioner involves inquiry on facts as regards the alleged
violation of building plan made by the respondent No.2 in teeth of the
Tripura Building Rules, 2004. Such inquiries may lead to appropriate
proceedings before the concerned Municipal Council which the Writ Court
is not equipped to deal with at the first instance. In the present case, it
appears that the Municipal Council has not proceeded or taken cognizance of
the representation of the petitioner. Even in such an event, the concerned
party against whom such allegations have been made is also required to be
noticed before a decision is taken in terms of the Tripura Building Rules,
2004.
7. In such circumstances, without interfering in the order of the
learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the writ petitioner may pursue
his representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Kailashahar Municipal
Council which may be considered in accordance with law, of course after
due opportunity to the affected party. Petitioner may have a remedy before
the appropriate Court of civil jurisdiction thereafter as is permissible in law.
8. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
