Tripura High Court
Sri Subrata Saha vs Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav on 25 September, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.50 of 2024
1. Sri Subrata Saha,
son of Lt. Sital Chandra Saha, resident of Banamalipur,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, Sub-Division- Sadar,
District- West Tripura, PIN-799001;
2. Sri Sankar Saha,
son of Lt. Hiralal Saha,
resident of Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala, Sub- Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura, PIN-799001.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav,
the Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation,
Agartala, West Tripura;
2. Sri Subrata Banik,
the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, East Zone,
Agartala Municipal Corporation, Agartala, West Tripura;
3. Sri Sambhunath Saha,
son of Lt. Balaran Saha, resident of Ganaraj Chowmuhani, Banamalipur,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, PIN-799001.
....Respondent-Contemnor(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi Debnath, Advocate
For Respondent-
Contemnor(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate
Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate
Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Advocate
Mr. Pujan Biswas, Advocate
Mr. Subendu Noatia, Advocate
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
ORDER
25.09.2024
This petition alleges deliberate disobedience of the order dated
04.072023 passed by this Court in WA No. 105/2022. The operative portion
of the order under offence is as under:
"8. As such, taking cue from the observations made in the earlier two
orders, this Court directs the respondent No.3 to remove the deviations
pointed out in the report dated 07.04.2022 within a period of 6(six) weeks
from today. Needless to say, deviations, which are non-compoundable as
indicated in the report dated 07.04.2022, have to be removed. The
Corporation will carry out an inspection immediately thereafter to verify
whether the deviations have been removed by the respondent No.3 or not. In
case, the Corporation finds that the deviations or part of it still remains, the
respondents-Corporation would be obliged to remove the same within a
period of 4(four) weeks thereafter at the cost of the respondent No.3."
An affidavit on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 i.e. Municipal
Commissioner of the Agartala Municipal Corporation has been filed. Learned
counsel for respondent no.1 has referred to the statements made at paragraphs
6 and 7 of the affidavit along with the enclosures, Annexures-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
6 which reads as under:
"6. That, after the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 the
Corporation issued Memo bearing no. F.WANO105 OF 2022/1724-
29 dated 29th August, 2023 and constituted a technical team to
inspect the building of the Respondent No. 3. On 31.08.2023 the
Respondent No. 3 also submitted a prayer before the Respondent
No. 1 for compounding of the deviations. Accordingly, the
Executive Engineer, Planning Division of Agartala Municipal
Corporation was entrusted to examine the prayer of the Respondent
No.3. From the inspection carried out by the technical team as well
as the Executive Engineer, Planning Division of AMC it emanated
that if amalgamation of the building of (i) Sri Sambhunath Saha,
(ii) Sri Bholanath Saha and (iii) Sri Priyanath Saha is allowed
under Rule 10 A of the Tripura Building Rules, 2017 as amended
till date and revised plan is submitted then the building of the
Respondent No. 3 would be within the compoundable limits under
the Rules. Even the non-compoundable deviations mentioned in the
report dated 07.04.2022 will come within the compoundable limits.
Accordingly, amalgamation of the building construction of (i) Sri
Sambhunath Saha, (ii) Sri Bholanath Saha and (iii) Sri Priyanath
Saha was allowed and a revised building plan was directed to be
submitted. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3 and others submitted
revised building plan. Further, penalty calculation was done by the
Planning Division of Agartala Municipal Corporation which came
to Rs.22,28,579/- (Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and
Five Hundred Seventy Tine Only). Vide Demand Notice dated
06.04.2024 the Respondent No. 3 and others were directed to
deposit the penalty amount of Rs. 22,28,579/-.
Copy of the Memo dated 29th August, 2023 and prayer of the
Respondent No. 3 dated 31.08.2023 are annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE- 1 and ANNEXURE-2.
Copy of the Demand Notice dated 06.04.2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-3.
7. That, vide letter dated 24.04.2024 the Respondent No. 3 sought
20% reduction of the penalty amount but the said prayer was
rejected vide letter dated 02.05.2024. Subsequently the penalty
amount was deposited and revised building permission dated
13.09.2024 was sanctioned as per the revised plan thereby
regularising the building construction of the Respondent No. 3.
Copy of the letter dated 24.04.2024 and the letter dated
02.05.2024 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-4
and ANNEXURE-5.
Copy of the revised building permission dated 13.09.2024 is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-6."
The private respondent has also filed an affidavit.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that pursuant to the
directions of this Court an inspection was carried out by a team of officials
constituted by the Municipal Commissioner, Agartala Municipal Corporation
to inspect the building. Pursuant to the said inspection, the technical team
opined that if amalgamation of the building of Sri Sambhunath Saha, Sri
Bholanath Saha and Sri Priyanath Saha is allowed under Rule 10A of the
Tripura Building Rules, 2017 as amended till date and revised plan is
submitted, then the building of the respondent no.3 would be within the
compoundable limits under the rules. These 3(three) persons are brothers who
had inherited the property earlier from their common ancestor. These 3(three)
persons, including the respondent no.3 thereafter submitted a revised building
plan with the deed of amalgamation of the plots. The same was examined by
the respondent no.1 and the deviations were found to be within the
permissible limit. Therefore, building permission was granted on 13th
September, 2023. The revised plan was sanctioned as per order dated
13.09.2024 regularizing the building construction of the respondent no.3 with
a condition to deposit the penalty of Rs.22,28,579/-. The same has also been
later deposited by the respondent no.3.
Therefore, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and
the private respondent, both submit that the order of this Court has been
complied with and there is no deliberate disobedience on their part.
On being satisfied with the explanation urged we find no case of
deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court made out for proceedings
against the respondents.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed.
(ARINDAM LODH, J) (APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ)
Snigdha
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.09.26
15:54:27 +05'30'
