The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice for demolition lacked proper show cause notice and opportunity for the petitioner, and thus was set aside and quashed.

U.B. Saha, J.

1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the notice-dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent No. 2, notice dated 4.3.98 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent No. 3 and notice dated 3.8.98 (Annexure-12) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was asked (1) to stop the construction work of her dwelling house, (2) for dismantling the bamboo fencing wall and also the constructed sanitary latrine immediately and (3) at remove construction made without taking permission of the Municipality within seven days from receipt of the notice (3.8.98), otherwise a penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from expiry of seven days from receipt of the said notice shall be charged on her till the date of removal or until the said unauthorized construction will be removed by the Agartala Municipal Council without further notice and expenditure for such removal will be charged on her as per provision of Tripura Municipal Act, 1994.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities and Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the added respondent No. 4.

3. To decide the points involved in this writ petition, it is necessary to narrate brief facts of the case, which is, accordingly, stated hereunder:

The writ petitioner submitted a building plan on 3.8.1988 to the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities for construction of a double storied building on her homestead land along with required No Objection Certificate obtained from the added respondent No. 4, the occupier of the southern land of the house of the petitioner, so that she can keep two feet open space along the southern boundary in place of four feet as required by the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 as extended to Tripura. Accordingly, the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities approved the said building plan. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted a plan to the respondents-Agartala Municipal authorities for construction of a sanitary latrine on her homestead land, which was also sanctioned vide letter dated 6.1.89 (Annexure-5) issued by the respondent No. 3. On the basis of the said approved plan, the petitioner started construction, but could not complete the entire construction work of the building as per approved plan. Only the major portion of the ground floor work was completed within the stipulated time allowed by the respondents-Municipal authorities. But the sanitary latrine was completed within the specified period i.e. in the year 1989. The petitioner again approached the respondents-Agartala Municipal Council in the year 1997 with another plan for construction of the remaining portion of the original approved plan and the said new plan for construction of the balance work of the original plan was approved vide letter dated 2.9.97 issued by the respondent No. 2.

4. In the month of April, 1998, the added respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition being registered as Civil rule No. 114 of 1998 praying for a direction to the respondents-Municipal authorities to dismantle the alleged unauthorized construction made by the present petitioner in her holding. This Court vide order dated 11.6.98 dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that the Easement Act being not applicable in the State of Tripura, the Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction. It was also observed that the writ petitioner, the added respondent No. 4 herein, might seek proper remedy before the appropriate forum. The Agartala Municipal authorities were also asked to follow the Rules for construction of building, if any.

5. The respondent No. 3 on 3.8.98 (Annexure-12) issued a notice asking the petitioner to remove the construction made by the petitioner without taking permission of the Municipality within seven days from the receipt of the said notice otherwise a penalty of Rs. 100/- will be charged after expiry of the said pe