Back
Cannot Demolish During Pending :
In a significant ruling, the has held that municipal authorities cannot pursue demolition proceedings when a against the original demolition order is pending before the appellate authority. Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud criticized the for acting in a one-sided manner and causing unnecessary hardship to citizens.
The Case: A Disputed Second Floor
The petitioner, Smt. Alakananda Basu (Roy), owned a building in Agartala. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, issued a demolition order on , alleging that the second floor of the building was an unauthorized construction. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed an appeal under , along with a stay application, before the on .
However, while the appeal remained pending without any hearing, the municipal authorities initiated fresh steps to demolish the structure. This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court under , seeking a stay on the demolition until the appeal was decided.
Arguments and Court's Observations
During the hearing, the counsel for the municipal corporation initially sought time for instructions. Later, he informed the court that he had advised his officers not to take coercive steps since the appeal was , but he was unsure whether the officers were still pursuing demolition.
The court expressed serious concern over the corporation's approach. It noted that the matter was already pending before the appellate tribunal, and the municipal authority should not have entertained further complaints or taken unilateral action.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court delivered scathing remarks on the conduct of the municipal officers:
"It is not for the municipal officer to take one side and create hardship to the other."
"Since the municipal officers are not effectively working as required under the public law, they are drawing the citizens to the Court."
"All the efforts that are supposed to be made in all fairness by the municipal officer are not present in the instant case."
The court also observed that the authorities could have examined records, given the petitioner a hearing, and then taken a decision on the alleged unauthorized construction. Instead, their lapses were causing citizens to approach the court unnecessarily.
The Decision: Disposed with Directions
The disposed of the writ petition with observations, but did not pass a specific stay order. However, it made clear that any hardship caused by the municipal authority during the pendency of the appeal would be uncalled for. The court advised the Municipal Commissioner to sensitize and guide subordinate officers to act in accordance with law.
This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory remedies must be respected, and administrative authorities must not take coercive action while appeals are pending. The judgment serves as a reminder that fairness and due process are paramount in municipal enforcement actions.
