Benu Roy Vs Siliguri Municipalcorporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Benu Roy Vs Siliguri Municipalcorporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Commissioner, Siliguri Municipal Corporation to decide the petitioner's complaints, including the complaint dated 19 January 2024, in terms of Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 5, within one month from communication of the order; writ petition disposed of with these observations and directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether and how the Siliguri Municipal Corporation should act upon the petitioner's complaints of illegal construction on the plot adjacent to the petitioner's property.

Court's answer

Without going into the controversy between the parties at this stage, the Court directed the Commissioner of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation to decide the petitioner's complaints in terms of Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also respondent no. 5.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's complaint dated 19 January 2024 shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, within one month from the date of communication of the order.

Key takeaways

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.ratio¶24
As the Court had not called for any affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition were deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), WPA 902 of 2024, Benu Roy v. Siliguri Municipal Corporation & Ors., decided 30.04.2024 by Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. The petitioner complained of inaction by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation in failing to act on his complaints regarding alleged illegal construction on the plot adjacent to his property; respondent no. 5 contended the construction predated the Corporation (completed 1995 under Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority permission), while the Corporation submitted that its inspection had identified violations of the building rules. Without entering into the controversy, the Court directed the Commissioner of the Corporation to decide the petitioner's complaints in terms of Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 5, the complaint of 19 January 2024 to be decided within one month of communication of the order. The writ petition stood disposed of; allegations deemed not admitted as no affidavits were called for.

Item no.

27 30.04.2024 Saswata

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

WPA 902 of 2024

Benu Roy versus

Siliguri Municipal Corporation & Ors .

Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahashaya Ms. Madhusri Dutta Mr. S. Dutta

… For the petitioner.

Mr. Deborshi Dhar

… For the Siliguri Municipal Corporation

Ms. Esha Acharya

… For the respondent no.5

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.

The petitioner complains of inaction on the part of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation in failing to take steps on the basis of the complaints made by the petitioner in relation to the illegal construction being carried out on the plot which is adjacent to the petitioner’s property.

Mr. Roy Mahashaya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that as late in the year 2019 illegal constructions had commenced. Although, from time to time the petitioner had made representations / complaints with the Municipal authorities, the same did not yield any result.

Ms. Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that the construction had been completed in the year 1995 on the basis of permission accorded by the Siliguri Jalpaiguri

2

Development Authority, which is much prior to the Siliguri Municipal Corporation being constituted and as such, there cannot be any question on the part of the petitioner obtaining any sanction from the Siliguri Municipal Corporation.

Mr. Dhar, learned advocate appearing for the Siliguri Municipal Corporation, on the other hand submits that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, an inspection had been carried out at the locale and the respondents have been able to identify violation of the building rules. A copy of the written instruction received by Mr. Dhar as placed before this Court is retained with the record.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

Admittedly, there appears to be a complaint lodged by the petitioner, however, without going into the controversy between the parties at this stage, it would be prudent to direct the Commissioner of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation to decide the complaints made by the petitioner in terms of Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the respondent no. 5.

The complaint made by the petitioner on 19^th January 2024 shall be decided in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 287 of the said Act, within one month from the date of communication of this order.

3

With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Since, I have not called for any affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

11.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the necessary formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)