SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1179

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Premlata Mago and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R. 878 Of 2022
Decided On : 03-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Utpal Majumdar, Adv. Mr. Abhidipto Tarafdar, Adv. Ms. Anyapurba Banerjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Goutam Dinda, Adv. Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Adv., Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Directors not involved in daily operations cannot be held liable for illegal construction under the KMC Act without specific allegations of their involvement.

Headnote:

Quashing - Criminal Revision - KMC Act Sections 401A, 619 - The court interpreted the provisions of the KMC Act, emphasizing that liability for illegal construction requires specific allegations against directors involved in day-to-day operations, leading to the quashing of charges against professional directors not involved in construction.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR and charge sheet under Section 401A of the KMC Act, alleging illegal construction despite having obtained necessary permits and completion certificates. They argued they were not responsible for the construction as they were professional directors not involved in day-to-day operations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, being professional directors, were not involved in the construction activities and had no specific allegations against them regarding illegal construction, thus quashing the FIR and charge sheet.

Issues: Whether the petitioners, as professional directors not involved in day-to-day operations, could be held liable under Section 401A of the KMC Act for alleged illegal construction.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability under Section 401A of the KMC Act requires specific allegations against directors who are in charge of the company's operations; mere designation as directors does not imply responsibility for illegal actions.

Result: The FIR and charge sheet against the petitioners were quashed.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) :

1. This instant Criminal Revisional application has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR being Entally P.S. Case No. 615 dated 21st December, 2015 registered under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Charge-Sheet No. 132/2021 dated 17th July, 2021 filed under Section 401A of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 only with regards to the petitioners herein.

2. The factual matrix of the instant case leading to filing of this application is as under:

2a. A sanction plan for construction of a G+IV residential building at Premises No. 67, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Kolkata700014 was sanctioned by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) being B.S. Permit No. 2005060020 (B-VI) dated 17th May, 2005. After completion of the said building, KMC also issued a completion certificate on 23rd April, 2008 in terms of Section 403 of the KMC Act, 1980. Even after issuing completion certificate by the appropriate authority i.e. KMC, a letter being Bldg-Br-VI/11(II)/2011-12 dated 30.01.2012 was issued, as per direction of W.B.C.S. (Ex) Jt. Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and Municipal Commissioner, by the Ex. Engineer (Bldg) Br-VI, Building Department to one Sri Mohan Mall, Constituted Power of Attorney Holder of Standard Pharmaceuticals Limited, 27, Mirza Galib Street, 5th Kolkata, 700014 to stop the construction work at Floor immediately unless and until obtaining clearance from Fire Safety Audit Committee. There was no specific allegation against the unauthorized construction or even no allegation of any deviation or construction in the said building beyond sanction plan as the 5th Floor plan was also sanctioned by the KMC being Building Permit No. 2011060034 and the same was valid up to 24.08.2016.

2b. The petitioners had obtained No Objection Certificate of Fire Safety clearance for additional and alteration of proposed construction of 5th Floor area of G+IV storied under group residential building at Premises No. 67, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Ward No. 55, Borough No. VI, Kolkata 700014. The said no objection certificate was issued by the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services vide Memo No. WBFES/2580/09/Kol-RB/74/04(88/04) dated 11.08.2009. But in spite of such fact, the Joint Secretary has illegally asked to stop the construction work.

2c. The present petitioners/ accused persons contended that petitioners were not the active Director or General Director or managing Director or Secretary of the company. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed as a Director under the category of professional Director on 15th January, 2014 and he resigned from the said Company on 25th May, 2016. At the same time, the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as an Additional Director under the category of professional Director of the said company on 23rd April, 2013 and he resigned on 22nd February, 2019 from the said company. When the stop work notice was issued, they were never in the company. As such they are not at liable for alleged offence as levelled by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. They were not at all responsible persons. However, only to harass with ulterior motive, FIR was lodged in the year 2015 alleging that the Construction has been made without a Sanction Plan resulting in FIR being Entally P.S. Case No. 615 dated 21.12.2015 under Section 401A of the K.M.C. Act, 1980. Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge sheet in the year 2021 after conclusion of Investigation i.e. almost expiry of six years against the present petitioners and others under Section 401A of the K.M.C. Act, 1980. Be that as it may, only present petitioners came before this court for seeking reliefs as sought for. Hence, the instant revisional application has come up before this Bench for disposal.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that due to ill motive and to harass the present petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top