IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that contempt proceedings ensure compliance with court orders, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to mandatory regulations in construction.

JUDGMENT :

PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by a learned Single Bench passed in connection with a contempt application being CPAN 694 of 2022 this instant appeal is filed at the behest of the appellants.

2. The learned Single Judge passed the following order:

“Mr. Krishnendu Narayan Choudhury, Chairman, English Bazar Municipality is personally present in Court.

Time has been sought for by the learned senior advocate representing the alleged contemnor to comply the direction passed by the Court.

On such request the matter stands adjourned till 30th November 2023.

The order of the court shall be complied and fresh evidence of compliance be filed on the adjourned date.

On the assurance given by the learned Senior Advocate representing the alleged contemnor, the personal appearance of the alleged contemnor stands dispensed with for the time being.”

3. The Respondent No. 1 (herein) filed a complaint before the English Bazar Municipality, Malda ventilating her grievance that the appellant (herein) has been constructing a building next to her building violating the provision of Rule 50 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 and without leaving requisite open space. As her complaint was not addressed by the Municipal Authority she filed a writ application before the Single Bench being WPA No. 17690 (W) of 2019 with a prayer for giving direction upon the Municipal Authority to take appropriate action. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.09.2019 by passing a direction which entails that:

“Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Rule 50 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 under 2(a) clearly prescribes that if a building is above 11.0 metre upto 14.5 metre, then the mandatory vacant side space shall be front open space (in metre) 1.5, open space on side 1(in metre) 1.5 metre, open space on side 2 (in metre) 2.5 metre and rear open space (in metre) 4.0 metre. But that statutory mandate has not been followed by the Municipality at the time of sanctioning the plan.

It has also been clearly emphasised by Mr. Bandopadhyay in paragraph 16 how and in what manner mandatory open space has not been kept open by the private respondent no. 5 at the time of constructing the existing building by violating Rule 50 of West Bengal Municipality (Building) Rules, 2007.

Mr. Bandopadhyay submits that the private respondent no. 5 should be restrained from carrying on any further construction on the basis of the disputed sanctioned plan illegally sanctioned by the Municipality.

The submission of Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no. 5.

Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the Municipality submits that an inspection was caused in absence of the private respondent no. 5. But Mr. Saha does not dispute the submission of the parties.

That being the scenario, I direct the Chairman, English Bazar Municipality, the respondent no. 2 herein to take a decision in respect of the petitioner’s complaint dated 25th September, 2018 as well as 5th August, 2019 within six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative and the private respondent no. 5 or his authorised representative and thereafter communicate the decision to the parties within one week.

Needelss to mention, if it is found in the decision that the private respondent no. 5 without keeping the mandatory open space as stipulated the Rule 50 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007, then the respondent no. 2 is directed to take further steps in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, till the decision is taken the private respondents are restrained from carrying on any construction or further construction at the building in question.”

Thereafter the Municipal A