Disposed¶7

Manoj Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Jul 2024WPA(P)/176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL by elected Municipal Councillor Manoj Singh against a 28-floor high-rise on a five-metre-wide lane near the Hooghly banks; sanctioned plan from West Bengal Housing Industry Regulatory Authority alleged illegal; construction complete and flats sold; Court declined to direct any action and left the Councillor free to approach the appropriate authorities; disposed of by Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. on 04.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued; petitioner left open to move the appropriate authorities in his capacity as an elected Municipal Councillor. ¶7

Manoj Singh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No direction issued; petitioner left open to move the appropriate authorities in his capacity as an elected Municipal Councillor.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue any direction concerning a 28-floor high-rise building constructed beside a narrow lane of about five meters width under an allegedly illegal sanctioned plan. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to issue any direction in this writ petition.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Nothing prevents the petitioner, being an elected Municipal Councillor, from exercising his rights as an elected representative and moving the appropriate authorities himself.

¶3

Key takeaways

The Court is satisfied as to the nature and pleadings in the public interest litigation, particularly at the behest of an elected Municipal Councillor.ratio¶5
It is left open to the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities in his capacity as an elected Municipal Councillor, if he deems fit and appropriate.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest writ petition (WPA(P)/176/2024) by Manoj Singh, an elected Municipal Councillor and self-described environmental enthusiast who monitors the banks of the river Hooghly, seeking intervention over a high-rise building of 28 floors built beside a narrow lane of about five meters width. The petitioner admitted that a sanctioned plan had been obtained from the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulatory Authority, which he alleges is illegal; learned counsel for the private respondents reported the construction was completed long ago and all flats sold out. The Court (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; decision dated 04.07.2024) held that nothing prevented the petitioner, as an elected Municipal Councillor, from exercising his rights as an elected representative and moving the appropriate authorities; it was not inclined to issue any direction in the writ petition and left it open to the petitioner to approach those authorities in his official capacity if he deemed fit. Matter accordingly disposed of.

¶1

04.07.2024 Item No.7 gd/ssd

¶2

WPA(P)/176/2024 MANOJ SINGH

¶3

¶4

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

¶5

Mr. Tamal Singha Roy, Ms. Tamalika Dutta ..for the Petitioner. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury ..for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Ms. Sonal Sinha, Ms. Shabnam Farooqui ..for the Respondent Nos.10 to 12. Mr. Gautam Lahiri ..for the Respondent Nos.20 to 21. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Mr. S. Roychoudhury, Mr. Aditya Kanodia, Ms. Shreya Trivedi ..for the Respondent No.25.

¶6

..for the Petitioner.

¶7

By way of this public interest petition the petitioner claims to be an elected Municipal Councillor and an active people’s representative and also claims that he is an avid environmental enthusiast and frequently travels alongside the banks of the river Hooghly on the east and west bank to keep an eye on the river and bring any sort of pollution to the notice of the statutory authorities.

¶8

The petitioner would state that he was shocked and surprised to find a high-rise building consisting of 28 floors has been built besides narrow lane of about five meters width and admits that sanctioned plan from the West Bengal Housing

¶9

¶10

Industry Regulatory Authority has been obtained which, according to the writ petitioner, is illegal.

¶11

If the petitioner is an elected representative, Municipal Councillor, nothing prevents him from exercising his right as an elected representative and move the appropriate authorities. The petitioner himself admits that a sanctioned plan has been obtained.

¶12

The learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submitted that the construction has been completed long ago and all the flats have been sold out.

¶13

In any event, we are fully satisfied as to the nature and pleadings in this public interest litigation more particularly at the behest of an elected Municipal Councillor.

¶14

Therefore, we are not inclined to issue any direction in this writ petition but, however, it will be left open to the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities in the capacity of an elected Municipal Councillor, if he deems fit and appropriate.

¶15

Accordingly, the matter stands disposed of.

¶16

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Manoj Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajib Kumar Acharyya Vs Shri Nanda Kumar Mishra, Chairperson, the Panskura Municipality and Anr.

Railway Contractor Labour Union and Anr. Vs Arti Ahuja

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 (1) Kolkata Vs Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd.

Biplab Nayek Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.Q

Baban Paul Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sipra Dey and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.