Disposed

Pradip Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Apr 2022WPA/751/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court, in a writ petition, held that the Siliguri Municipal Corporation failed to provide an opportunity of hearing before issuing a notice for demolition. The Court directed the Corporation to afford such an opportunity under Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, before taking further steps.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing the Commissioner, Siliguri Municipal Corporation, to give an opportunity of hearing/cause to petitioners before taking further steps. Corporation to pass a reasoned order w

Pradip Ghosh and Anr. Vs the State of West… — Municipal and Town Planning | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

08 12.04.2022 AK

¶2

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

W.P.A 751 of 2022

¶4

Pradip Ghosh and another -versus

¶5

The State of West Bengal and others

¶6

Mr. deborshi Dhar

¶7

…For the Petitioners.

Mr. Subir Kumar Saha

Ms. Bedashruti Bose

…For the State.

Mr. Saumya dasgupta Mr. Bijay Bikram Das

¶12

…For the respondent nos.2 & 3.

¶13

The petitioners assails a notice dated 21^st March, 2022 issued by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation by which the petitioners were directed to dismantle the unauthorized construction carried on by the petitioners at the concerned premises within three days from the date of issue of the notice failing which the Siliguri Municipal Corporation would take up the demolition work.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the notice is in contravention of Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006. As no notice of showing cause were given to the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the petitioners had themselves written a letter to the Corporation pursuant to an inspection

¶16

¶17

done sometime in March 2022. Counsel, however, suggests that appropriate directions may be given to the Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel, this court is of the view that since the petitioners were admittedly not given any opportunity of showing cause under the first proviso to Section 266 of the 2006 Act, the writ petition may be disposed of with the direction on the Commissioner, Siliguri Municipal

¶19

Corporation/respondent no.3, to give an opportunity of hearing or showing cause to the petitioners under Section 266 of the Act before any further steps are taken by the Corporation.

¶20

The submission of learned counsel that no coercive steps have been taken against the petitioners since March 2022 is also recorded. The Corporation is directed to pass a reasoned order after hearing all concerned parties including the petitioners within a period of four weeks from date of communication of this order. A copy of the reasoned order shall be available to the petitioners within a week from the date on which the order is passed.

¶21

WPA 751 of 2022 is disposed of in terms of the above.

¶22

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

Pradip Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Ghosh and Anr. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Probodh Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Lakshman Chandra Poddar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Manimohan Paramanik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sukumar Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kanchan Kumar Ghosh Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Satender Suhag Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.