Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Amitabha Dutta, J.
Samarendra Nath Bose – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
Civil Rule No. 97 (W) of 1982
Decided On: January 25, 1982
MUNICIPAL LAW - CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - RENAMING OF PUBLIC STREET - PROCEDURE - ADVISORY COMMITTEE - DISCRETION - FAIRNESS - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a ratepayer and permanent resident of Bosepara Lane, challenged the decision of the Corporation of Calcutta to rename Bosepara Lane as Ma Saradamoni Sarani. The petitioner contended that the Corporation did not comply with the provisions of Section 349 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which required the Corporation to refer the proposal to an Advisory Committee for its consideration before renaming a public street. The petitioner also contended that he was deprived of his right to be heard in the matter, as the Corporation did not issue a public notice inviting objections from the public before renaming the street.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Advisory Committee failed to exercise its discretion properly in recommending the renaming of Bosepara Lane. The court held that the Advisory Committee acted under the exhortation or dictation of the Commissioner representing the Corporation of Calcutta, without deliberating on the proposal in its historical and cultural aspects as required under Section 349(9) of the Act. The court also found that the petitioner was deprived of his right to be heard in the matter, as the Corporation did not issue a public notice inviting objections from the public before renaming the street.
Issues: 1. Whether the Advisory Committee exercised its discretion properly in recommending the renaming of Bosepara Lane? 2. Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to be heard in the matter?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Advisory Committee failed to exercise its discretion properly in recommending the renaming of Bosepara Lane. The court held that the Advisory Committee acted under the exhortation or dictation of the Commissioner representing the Corporation of Calcutta, without deliberating on the proposal in its historical and cultural aspects as required under Section 349(9) of the Act. 2. The court held that the petitioner was deprived of his right to be heard in the matter, as the Corporation did not issue a public notice inviting objections from the public before renaming the street.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give further effect to the decision to rename Bosepara Lane as Ma Saradamoni Sarani. The court also held that the petitioner had sufficient interest to maintain the writ petition, as he had been deprived of the opportunity of being heard through written representation and his legitimate expectation of getting such hearing had been frustrated.
1. THIS writ petition is for Mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect or further effect to their decision to rename Bosepara Lane, a public street in ward Nos. 7 and 8 of the Corporation of Calcutta as Ma Saradarhoni Sarami to purpetuate the memory of the consort of Sri Ramakrishna.
2. THE petitioner is a ratepayer and a permanent resident of Bosepara Lane. The respondent No. 1 is the State of West Bengal. The respondent No. 2 is the Corporation of Calcutta and the respondent No. 3 is the Administrator, Corporation of Calcutta and the added respondent No. 4 is the chairman, (road renaming) Advisory committee referred to in Section 349 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act 1951.
The petitioner's case may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a descendant of the famous Bose family which started residing in an area in North Calcutta (Bagbazar) and as a result of its continued residence the said area came to be known as Bosepara lane. The name of the public street as bosepara Lane came to be associated with the birth of the famous poet Mahakabi girish Chandra Ghosh and the first visit of the great saint Thakur Sri Ramakrishna to calcutta in 1877 when he came to the house of Kalinath Bose and set his holy fact on Bosepara Lane. Sister Nevedita world famous desciple of Swami Vivekananda resided at Bosepara Lane and her residence was the centre of her social religious and political activities. She founded the historic girls school named Nevedita Girls School at no. 16 (then No. 17) Bosepara Lane. Swami Vivekananda who made the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, a world force by his famouse speeches in the Parliament of religion at Chlkago in 1893 used to visit that place as the spritual master to Sister nevedita. Out of 17 direct deciples of thakur Sri Ramakrishna three named Harl, tulshi and Gahgadhar who later were known as Swami Turiananda, Swami Nirmalananda and Swami Akhandamanda were residents of Bosepara Lane and two of them were born there. These facts are mentioned in several books and publications. The respondents did not comply with the provisions of Section 349 of the Calcutta municipal Act in renaming Bosepara Lane without examining the cultural and historical aspects of the matter although the name of the street Bosepara Lane has such glorious association. In all other cases of renaming of public street in Calcutta the Corporation of Calcutta issued public notices inviting written objections from the public through daily newspapers, but in the case of the impugned renaming of Bosepara lane no such public notice was issued. Thus the petitioner has been deprived of his right of being heard through written objection and placing materials for consideration by the Advisory Committee referred to in Section 349 (2) of the said Act. The antiquities and the cultural and religious activities of famous men and women in a glorious epoch of Bengal which are inextricably associated with Bosepara Lane were not considered at all as the petitioner and other members of the public were not given opportunity to place relevant materials before the Advisory Committee which purported to recommend the renaming of the said public street as Ma Saradamoni Sarani. The respondents acted in violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India by depriving him of his right to make written representation against the proposed renaming of bosepara Lane and the decision of the respondents is also arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide.
3. THE respondents Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and the added respondent No. 4 have appeared through separate counsel to oppose the writ petition. The respondent Nos., 2 and 3 have filed several affidavits-in-oppsition in answer to the writ petition and supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner. Their case is that there is no provision in the Calcutta Municipal Act requiring corporation of Calcutta to invite objections from the public before renaming a public street. In t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
