Ghanashyam Das vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(Cal) 441

SOUMITRA PAL
Ghanashyam Das – Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
W.P. 14557 (W) of 2012
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Dutta, Mr. Naren Ghosh Dastidar.
For the K.M.C : Mr. Ashoke Banerjee, Learned Government Pleader, Ms. Sima Chakraborty.
For the respondent no.6.: Mr. Dipankar Chakraborty, Mr. Somnath Ghosh.
W.P. 934 (W) of 2014
For the petitioner: Mr. Sambhu Nath Dey.
For the K.M.C : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Subhrangshu Panda.
For the respondent no.7: Mr. Suddhwasatwa Banerjee, Mr. Supratik Roy, Ms. Ira Bhattacharyya.
W.P. 3583 (W) of 2014
For the petitioners: Mr. Lal Mohan Hajra, Mr. S. Panja, Mr. M. Hajra.
For the K.M.C. : Mr. Barin Banerjee, Mr. S.K. Debnath.
For the respondent no. 5.: Mr. Arnab Dutt.
W.P. 6960 (W) of 2014
For the petitioners: Ms. Sayanti Santra.
For the K.M.C. : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Subhrangshu Panda.
For the State. : Mrs. Anjushri Mukherjee.
For the respondent no.7: Mr. Keshab Bhattacharya, Ms. Susmita Mukherjee.
W.P. 8951 (W) of 2014
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajnarayan Datta.
For the K.M.C. : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Subhrangshu Panda.
For the respondent no.3: Mr. Rajarshi Dutt, Ms. Rita Mallick
For the respondent no.4: Mr. D. N. Chatterjee, Mr. Abhijit Boral.
W.P. 7871 (W) of 2014
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajarshi Dutt, Mr. Sayantan Bose, Ms. Ishita Bose.
For the H.M.C. : Mrs. Smritikana Mukherjee.
For the respondent no.4:Mr. L.C. Bihani, Senior Advocate Mr. N.C. Bihani.
W.P. 3508 (W) of 2014
For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Gupta.
For the K.M.C : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Mr. Arijit Dey.
W.P. No. 251 of 2014
For the petitioners:Mr. Hirak Mitra, Senior Advocate Mrs. S. Chatterjee, Mrs. Sima Chakraborty.
For the respondent: Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh Mr. Razlul Haqu, Ms. Koyali Bhattacharjee.

Judgment

Soumitra Pal, J.

In the writ petitions, being W.P. 14557 (W) of 2012, W.P 934 (W) of 2014, W.P 3583 (W) of 2014, W.P. 6960 (W) of 2014 and W.P 8951 (W) of 2014, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’) and in W.P 7871 (W) of 2014 upon the Howrah Municipal Corporation (‘HMC’ in short) to demolish constructions found to be illegal and directed to be retained or regularised upon payment of fees, principally on the ground that the provisions contained in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1980 KMC Act’) and the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1980 HMC Act’) do not confer jurisdiction on the respective adjudicating authorities to pass such orders.

In the writ petition, being W.P. 3508 (W) of 2014 and in W.P. 251 of 2014 the petitioners have principally challenged the imposition of fees or charges for retaining or regularisation of the unauthorized construction on the ground that it is not permissible under the 1980 KMC Act.

In my view, as the issues are common, matters were heard analogously. It appears from the records that directions were issued t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(Cal) 441

SOUMITRA PALGhanashyam Das – AppellantVersusKolkata Municipal Corporation – Respondent

SOUMITRA PAL
Ghanashyam Das – Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Respondent