Disposed

Santos Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/761/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court held that a communication under Section 181 of the Assam Municipal Act was within jurisdiction, making writ intervention improper. However, granting time due to pending status-quo, the Court directed the Executive Officer to act on the petitioner's forthcoming reply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted seven days to submit reply to the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board.

Santos Karmakar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010019342021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/761/2021

¶5

SANTOS KARMAKAR

¶6

S/O LATE SUNIL KARMAKAR,

¶7

RESIDENT OF NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, WARD NO. 14, PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶11

2:THE DIRECTOR

¶12

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶13

3:THE NORTH LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON NORTH LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶14

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶15

NORTH LAKHIMPUR MUNICIPAL BOARD DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSA

¶16

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, Advocate

¶17

For the respondent (s) : Mr. J. Handique, Govt. Advocate

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶20

11.09.2023

¶21

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 05.09.2020 issued by the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board.

¶22

This Court has duly perused the materials on record as well as the impugned communication. From a perusal of the impugned communication, it reveals that the petitioner was directed to submit a reply within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why construction so done should not be considered as unauthorized and why action should not be initiated against the petitioner under Section 181 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1951.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not submitted his reply and has directly approached this Court. It is the opinion of this Court that the issuance of the said impugned communication cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or authority, and as such, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted.

¶24

Be that as it may, as the petitioner has not submitted his reply and the writ petition has been pending and there is an order of status-quo passed on 10.02.2021, this Court grants the petitioner an additional 7 (seven) days time to submit his reply to the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board in terms with the communication dated 05.09.2020.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

On the basis of the said reply, the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board shall bring it to a logical conclusion the proceedings so initiated on the basis of the communication dated 05.09.2020. It is further made clear that if within the time so stipulated, the reply is not filed by the petitioner, the Executive Officer, North Lakhimpur Municipal Board shall take such decision as deemed fit in terms with the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act, 1951 and the Rules framed thereinunder.

¶27

With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Santos Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santos Karmakar v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Narendra Sing Vs Union of India and 9 Ors.

Sahabuddin Ahmed and 26 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Arun Chandra Kalita Vs the Reserve Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Saranga Das Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Sabitri Barman Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sekendar Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.