HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRAVARTTI,G. N. DAS BANERJEE,K. C. DAS GUPTA,S. R. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Nihar Kumari Debi
Versus
Commissioner of Police
A.F.O.O. No.47 of 1951
Decided On : 10-09-1952
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - S.45 - MANDAMUS - WRIT - CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA - SANCTION FOR CINEMA HOUSE - DELAY - ARBITRARY REFUSAL - JURISDICTION - GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL - PUBLIC NUISANCE - BLACK MARKET - BUILDING RULES - AFFIDAVIT - PARTIES - ART.226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who were the owners of three ladies, applied to the Corporation of Calcutta for sanction to construct a cinema house on the lands. The Corporation did not dispose of the application and at one stage had some local enquiries made by some of its Councillors. About three years passed in that way and on 14th August 1948, the Commissioner of Police withdrew the permission given by him on the grounds that the area had by then become a residential locality and that someone other than those who were applicants before the Corporation had applied for the permission of the Police. The Corporation has not yet given its sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Judge held that so far as sanction for the construction of the building was concerned, the application was unnecessary, since under Rule 58 of Schedule 17 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, sanction could be assumed to have been given and so far as sanction to run a cinema house was concerned, the application was premature, since no such sanction could be given before the building was constructed.
Issues: 1. Whether the application was maintainable as an application under S.45, Specific Relief Act? 2. Whether the application could be treated as an application under Art.226 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Corporation was justified in withholding sanction for the construction of the cinema house?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The application was not maintainable as an application under S.45, Specific Relief Act, as it was not properly affirmed by the three ladies who were the real and only owners of the property and all the persons injured had not been joined or made parties to the application. 2. The application could be treated as an application under Art.226 of the Constitution, as it was clear from the cause title, body of the petition and prayers that the petitioners were not only asking for reliefs under S.45, Specific Relief Act but also for writs of mandamus. 3. The Corporation was not justified in withholding sanction for the construction of the cinema house, as it had not acted promptly in the matter of granting or withholding such licence and had kept the matter pending beyond the periods mentioned in the rules and had taken into consideration extraneous matters which it had no right to do.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed as against the Corporation of Calcutta and it was directed to grant forthwith sanction to build the cinema house.
CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J.: - This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Bose J., dated 2nd February 1951 by which the learned Judge dismissed an application made by the appellants for certain orders under S.45, Specific Relief Act and writs of Mandamus against the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and the Corporation of Calcutta.
2. It has been held in the case of - Chairman, Budge Budge Municipality v. Mangru Mia, A.O.O. No.77 of 1951 which was heard along with this case, that an appeal lies. Of the two respondents in the appeal, the appellants abandoned their case against the Commissioner of Police. Only the case against the Corporation of Calcutta therefore requires to be considered.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that two plots of land, situated at the junction of Gariahata Road and Ekdalia Road, were purchased in the names of three ladies, Nihar Kumari Debi, Sunayana Debi and Smriti Kana Debi. Who the actual purchasers were, whether the ladies themselves or they and Ganga Gobinda Mukherjee, the husband of Smriti Kana or the joint family, it is not very clear. Be that as it may, after the purchase of the plots, Ganga Gobinda approached the Commissioner of Police for permission or a license to build a cinema house on the site and after a third contiguous plot had been purchased in order to satisfy the requirements of the Traffic Regulations of the Police, the Commissioner informed Ganga Gobinda on 6th February 1945 that there was no objection from the Police point of view to the construction of a cinema house on the proposed site. It appears that the third plot also was purchased in the names of the three ladies. About three weeks before the Commissioner of Police gave his approval, on 14th January 1945, the three ladies, as the recorded owners of the plots, applied to the Corporation of Calcutta for sanction for the construction of a cinema house on the lands and submitted building plans along with their application.
Soon, however, some opposition to the project from a certain section of the inhabitants of the locality began to assert itself. The Corporation did not dispose of the application and at one stage had some local enquiries made by some of its Councillors. In the meantime, supporters and opponents of the project appear to have both been active. About three years passed in that way and on 14th August 1948, the Commissioner of Police withdrew the permission given by him on the grounds that the area had by then become a residential locality and that someone other than those who were applicants before the Corporation had applied for the permission of the Police. The Corporation has not yet given its sanction.
4. The application out of which the present appeal arises was made on 4th July 1950. The applicants were the three ladies and Ganga Gobinda Mukherjee and they alleged that although the plans submitted by them substantially complied with all building rules and regulations and although the construction of a cinema house at the proposed site was recommended by the Councillors who had made a local inspection and although sanction was recomrnended by the Corporations own Law Officer, the Corporation was withholding sanction illegally and arbitrarily. It was also alleged that the area concerned was a commercial area and the majority of the local residents were enthusiastic supporters of the project. It is unnecessary to refer to the allegations made against the Commissioner of Police.
5. The application was headed "In the matter of the Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) and In the Matter of Writs of Mandamus." The only affidavit by which it was supported was an affidavit of Ganga Gobinda Mukherjee. The prayers, so far as the Corporation was concerned, were for an order that the Corporation do grant forthwith sanction to build the cinema house on the site selected for the purpose and for a writ of mandamus, directing the performance of the said Act.
6. On 21st August 1950, the three ladies and Ganga Gobinda Mukherjee aff
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.