Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
Amar Nath Sadhu - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondent
CRR No. 232 of 2017, CRAN 3721 of 2017, CRR No. 428 of 2017 and CRAN 3543 of 2017
Decided On : 09-02-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Anirudha Agarwalla, Ms. Farhaj Nasim Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Asish Kumar Sanyal, Mr. Anidya Sundar Chatterjee, Mr. Goutam Dinda Adv.
The central legal point established is the requirement for the corporation to prove endangerment and the need for specificity in identifying responsible individuals under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
Headnote:
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act - Non-Executive Directors - Section 401A - Section 619 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which pertains to the construction of buildings in contravention of the Act, and Section 619, which deals with offences by companies. The court emphasized the requirement for the corporation to prove endangerment to human life or property and the lack of specificity in identifying individuals responsible for the company's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The non-executive Directors of a company filed applications for quashing a proceeding under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. The corporation had alleged that the company undertook renovation work without proper sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the corporation failed to prove endangerment to human life or property and did not specify individuals responsible for the company's actions. It also noted the withdrawal of the notice under Section 401 and the corporation's admission that the repair work could be undertaken without sanction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the corporation's allegations under Section 401A, the lack of specificity in identifying responsible individuals, and the withdrawal of the notice under Section 401.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the corporation to prove endangerment and the lack of specificity in identifying responsible individuals, leading to the quashing of the proceeding.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashing the proceeding under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
DEBI PROSAD DEY, J.
CRR 428 of 2017 and CRR 232 of 2017 have been taken up together for disposal since two non-executive Directors of Heritage Health Insurance, TPA Private Limited have filed the respective applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding being case no. 2829 of 2016 arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 236 of 2016 under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, pending before the Court of learned senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, Kolkata Municipal Corporation Court. The petitioners are the non-executive Directors of Heritage Health Insurance, TPA Private Limited having its registered office at 3 N. S. Bose Road, Kolkata-700001 under police station Hare Street. The said company was in requirement of a space at its administrative office and that is why, has taken on lease an office space measuring more or less 559 Sq. Ft. of 2nd Floor of Mallick House on 7 Hare Street, Calcutta-700001. The company thereafter undertake the renovation work of such office space with notice to the Councilor of Ward No. 45 vide annexure P3. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation served a notice upon the company under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 alleging that the repair work being carried out at the said office premises without any sanction from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In the meantime, on receipt of a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure addressed to the Directors of the said company it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has also lodged a complaint against the company under Section 401A of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.
2. The company duly replied to the notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act explaining the nature of work undertaken by the company in the lease hold property. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Borough-V, Kolkata Municipal Corporation directed the company to demolish the work undertaken by the company. The company accordingly demolished the wooden construction inside the lease hold property and explained the alleged change of user of such property. In terms of such undertaking the company ultimately demolished the work already executed by the company. The Assistant Engineer, Building Department of Borough-IV & V, Kolkata Municipal Corporation thereafter being satisfied about such demolition work of the company withdrew the notice under Section 401 by letter No. BL/316.AE(c)/Bldg Br IV & V, dated 1st August, 2017. The company also intimated to the Assistant Engineer(Civil) of Building Department about the work to be undertaken by the company and it has further been intimated that as per Rule 3(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 no such permission is required. That letter has also been acknowledged and admitted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation by its letter dated 23.08.2017 Annexed with the supplementary affidavit.
3. Learned Advocate Mrs. Anusuya Sinha has submitted a report of the Sub-Inspector of Police wherefrom it transpires that in fact the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has withdrawn the notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. The authenticity of the said letter has been verified by the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is, therefore, apparent from such letter of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation that in fact the notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act has been withdrawn by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
4. Learned senior Counsel Mr. Debasish Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioners are non-executive Directors and they were not in charge of day to day function of the company under reference. The information given to the police by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation does not depict the name of the present petitioners as executive/Managing Director of the said company. It has simply be
