J U D G M E N T & O R D E R

Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J

[ 1] Heard Mr. Tapas Kumar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondent-State. Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appears for respondent No.5 and Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, learned counsel presents before this Court on behalf of the respondents-Municipal Corporation.

[2] The brief facts of the petitioners case is that an apartment namely "The Royal Peace Apartment" at Battala, Agartala was developed by the respondent No.5 being the developer. It is stated that the petitioners purchased G-1 to G-4 in the Ground Floor of the apartment in the year 2020 for commercial purpose. During the period of construction respondent No.5 in violation of the approved Municipal Building Plan erected latrine and toilet one in Northern side of the apartment, and another in the southern side of the apartment over the drain an open side space. Accordingly, petitioners herein raised objection whereby the respondent No.5 assured that the construction would be dismantled after completion of the construction as constructed for use of labourers. But, till today the respondent No.5 has not dismantled it. It is also stated that the petitioner No.1 purchased the flat in Ground floor for Pathology Laboratory and Petitioner No.3 for Eye Clinic in the Ground Floor but the petitioner No.1 had to close down while the petitioner No.3 could not open his Eye clinic for creation of such construction. Further, it is stated that respondent No.5 had erected a brick wall tin shed guard room in the ingress and egress of the apartment causing hurdles in smooth movement of vehicle and pedestrians. Thereafter, finding no other alternative petitioners herein lodged complaint before the respondent nos.3 & 4 and after physical inspection they have passed orders directing the respondent No.5 to demolish the unauthorised construction within the time limit as mentioned in the orders. But, till today the respondent No.5 did not take any step to implement such orders. Thus, being dissatisfied by the act of respondent No.5 , this instant writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. ISSUE RULE, Calling upon the State Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus should not be passed for demolishing the unauthorized construction of latrine and toilet and Brick wall tin shed Guard Room within the time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court consequent upon Final order dated 10" November, 2025 in case No.7 of 2025 under section 31 of T-RERA Act, 2016(Annexure-9) and also the order passed by the Respondent No.3 vide No.F.65/SZO/AMC/2024 (shadow)/714-715, dated 7 May, 2025.

ii. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus should not be passed directing to initiate proceeding against the Respondent No.5 for wilful violation of the Tripura Building Rules and the Municipal Approved Building Plan;

iii. ISSUE RULE calling upon the Respondent No.5 to pay adequate compensation to the Petitioners for compelling them to suffer to live in an worst unhygienic condition causing health hazardous and creating obstruction from free air and sunlight;

iv. Cost of the suit for unnecessary dragging the petitioner into the litigation;

V. After hearing, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of Prayer i. ii, iii & iv above;

vi. Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper”.

[3] Mr. Tapas Kumar Deb, learned counsel submits before this Court that the respondent No.5 being the developer constructed the apartment wherein in terms of the approved drawings and design the developer started construction of the apartment but, thereafter, beyond the approved building plan dated 01.02.2020, the developer i.e. respondent No.5 erected latrine and toilet one in Northern side of the apartment, over the drain leaving the space as open facing the construction of the apartment and another on the sout