Remanded
Satirani Ghosh v. Yhe Kolkata Municial Corporation and Ors.
Calcutta HCWPA/1092/2021
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Item No.21 17.03.2021 (suvendu) WPA 1092 OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
Item No.21 17.03.2021 (suvendu) WPA 1092 OF…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Ct. 24 Item No.21 17.03.2021 (suvendu)
WPA 1092 OF 2021
Smt. Satirani Ghosh
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Kaushik Chandra Gupta
…..…for the petitioner
Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee Mr. Dipankar Ghosh Ms. Indumouli Banerjee
………for the KMC
Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey Mr. M. Hossain Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. S. Azam
………….for the respondent no.5
The petitioner alleges that his representation dated 5th October, 2020 praying for cancellation of the Sanction Plan granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in favour of the private respondents has not been considered by the respondent authority till date. It appears that the petitioner by the said representation apprised the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that a fraud has been committed at the time of sanctioning of the Building Plan in respect of the premises No. 3P, Ram Krishna Naskar Lane, Beliaghata, Kolkata –700 010 under Ward No. 33 and Borough –III.
The learned advocate appearing for the private respondents denies the contention of the petitioner.
2
It is submitted on behalf of the private respondents that the necessary documents were produced before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at the material point of time and relying upon those documents the plan was sanctioned in their favour.
The learned advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that the Corporation sanctioned the plan on the basis of the registered documents produced by the private respondents.
It appears from the submissions of the parties that the title of the property appears to be disputed. The private respondents rely upon a probate, which was granted in their favour by the competent court. The learned advocate appearing for the Municipality refers to a registered power of attorney relying on which the plan was sanctioned.
As it appears that the objection of the petitioner is pending consideration at the end of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. The same is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 2 or any officer authorized by the respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondents within a period of twelve weeks
3
from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner as well as the private respondents immediately thereafter.
It is made clear that I have not gone into the merit of the case and the respondent no.2 shall be free to decide all the points that may be raised before him without being influenced by this order.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to be denied.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
2 issues framed by the court
whether the representation regarding fraud in sanction of building plan is disposed of in the writ petition
whether the authority must be directed to consider the objection with a hearing for parties within 12 weeks
Smt. Satirani Ghosh
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Ors.
not specified
not specified
not specified
not specified
not specified
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court