Smt. Premlata Biswal & Anr. vs Jagadishwar Kundu & Ors.

The Registrar General is directed to satisfactorily explain to this Bench as

to why the Additional Stamp Reporter''s endorsement dated 17th February, 2017,

is not reflected in the second Judge''s brief. The Registrar General is also directed

to ensure that henceforth this never recurs in future.

The report of the Registrar General shall be brought to our notice in our

Administrative Side within a week from date.

In Re: CAN 4150 of 2017

Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the

instant application and considering the facts and circumstances of the instant

case, leave granted to the applicants to prefer an appeal against the judgment

and order dated 20th January, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P.

18206 (W) of 2015 ( Sri Jagadishwar Kundu & Anr. vs. The Hooghly-Chinsurah

Municipality & Ors .).

The application for leave to prefer an appeal is accordingly allowed.

In Re: MAT 179 of 2017 with CAN 1462 of 2017

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day''s list and is taken

up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 20th January,

2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 18206 (W) of 2015 ( Sri

Jagadishwar Kundu & Anr. vs. The Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality & Ors .),

which is set out hereinbelow:

"The petitioners lodged a complaint before the Hooghly- Chinsurah Municipality alleging the illegal and unauthorised construction undertaken by the private respondents in contravention to the sanctioned plan.

The meeting was called by the Chairman of the Municipality when the representative of the petitioner was present but thereafter no decision could be arrived at. It further appears from the record that prior to the same stop work notice was issued by the Chairman and directed the private respondents to attend the hearing fixed in the chamber of Chairman-In-Council, PWD of the said municipality on 20th February 2015. As indicated above that the private respondents did not attend the said meeting but it appears that the municipality is sitting tight over the matter and have not activated the process of law after the spot (sic; read, stop) work notice is issued.

In view of the above, this Court directs the Municipality to initiate a proceeding under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 against the private respondents and shall see that the said proceedings reach to its logical end within four weeks there from.

It goes without saying that the authorities mentioned in the aforesaid provision shall adhere the principles of natural justice and will give full opportunity of hearing to the private respondents as well as the petitioner while taking a decision recording proper reasons.

For abundant precaution, it is hereby made clear that the aforesaid decision shall not be construed as establishing the right of the petitioner or against the private respondents and shall be decided independently without being influenced thereby.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of."

Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order as reproduced

hereinabove does not reveal any infirmity of reasoning or perversity. In an Intra-

Court Mandamus Appeal, unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed,

no interference is usually warranted. The learned Single Judge has merely

directed the concerned Municipality to initiate proceeding under section 218 of

the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 against the private respondents (being the

appellants herein) and to see that such proceeding reach to its logical end within

a certain timeframe. The learned Single Judge has also made further

observations, which have been quoted hereinabove, that adequately protect the

rights of the appellants

As such, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed

and are accordingly dismissed.