Anjit Miah v. Agartala Municipal Corporation

: Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate. Mr. K. Nath, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate. Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A. Mr. S. Majumder, Advocate. Date of hearing : 06.12.2022. Date of delivery of Judgment & Order : 13.12.2022. Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY J U D G M E N T &

O R D E R CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) This is an appeal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Chapter V A Rule 2(2) of the Gauhati High Court Rules, as applicable, against the Order, dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) No. 74 of 2021.

The brief fact of this instant case is that all the appellants herein are bamboo merchants. They were selling bamboos occupying land, which is the bank of river Howrah near Jahwar Bridge, within the Agartala Municipal Corporation (for short, AMC) area. Having felt environmental hazard and to undertake development works restoring the damage suffered by the said river, the State-respondents as well the AMC asked the bamboo merchants i.e. the appellants, to shift their business of selling bamboos to other place(s). The appellants demanded some lands from the government itself. Dispute arose when the respondents tried to evict the appellants from the land occupied by them on the bank of river Howrah. Being aggrieved by such eviction process, the appellants have approached the learned Single Bench of this Court by filing the Writ Petition No.74 of 2021. In the writ petition, the appellant herein sought necessary direction to rehabilitee the appellants herein in a suitable place and to quash the orders, dated 02.12.2021 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, AMC. As an interim measure, the learned Single Judge granted protection to the appellants by staying the operations of the orders dated 02.02.2021 during the pendency of the said writ petition

Ultimately, Learned Single Judge vide order dated

07.09.2021 dismissed the said petition. The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:- “9. Accordingly, I direct the petitioners to shift their bamboo business to the place, as proposed by the State-respondents including the AMC. They have no right to claim to run their business from the bank of river Howrah causing its serious damage, which shall further lead to damage of the life and properties of the residents at Agartala and other areas. The petitioners shall positively shift their business from the present place of their business i.e. bank of river Howrah within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. The AMC is directed to cancel the license of the respective petitioners after expiry of 30 days, if they do not shift their place of business from the bank of river Howrah. Hence, this instant appeal.

Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein argued that the appellants being the street vendors, who are carrying on business at Bamboo Market near Battala Howrah Bridge, cannot be ousted from the Agartala City and asked to shift their business to the place which is beyond the city limit. The said area is situated in an area that is not frequented by the common people. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellants are entitled to rehabilitation in a convenient and suitable place that is accessed by the common people. The proposed site is not at all convenient for the business of the appellants as it is not a marketplace and it is not frequented by the common people. Stating thus, learned Sr. Counsel urged this Court to allow this instant appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated

07.09.2021.

Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for respondents AMC, and Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the appellants herein are not having valid licenses to run the said business and their activities in the bank of river Howrah are causing environmental hazard and damaging the river. The said business is situated in a busy area of the city and obstructs the normal function of the city. Stating this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged to dismiss this instant appeal.

Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.

The license of appellant No.1 is valid up to 31st March, 2021, the license of appellant No.2 is valid up to 31 March 2020, the license of appellant No.3 is valid up to 31st March 2020, the license of appellant No.4 is valid up to 31st March 2014, the license of appellant No.5 is valid up to 31st March 2020, the license of appellant No.6 is valid up to 31st March 2014, the license of appellant No.7 is valid up to 31st March 2015 and the license of appellant No.8 is valid up to 31st March, 2020. After the expiry of the license period, there is no deemed provision enabling right to continue the business. The licenses granted have been expired by efflux of time. They are treated to be encroachers on the Government land. More so on the embankment of the Howrah River, there cannot be any activity, and change of nature of the land is also not permissible. So alternative site is allotted by Government in Industrial area and they are expected to go and occupy the same. Since they are in possession of the said land for the last several years, this Court considers that some reasonable time may be given for them to shift. This particular change in developing the Howrah river bed, maintaining its natural form, increasing its beauty, and shifting the Bamboo market yard from City to the outskirts, is a change and whenever there is a change some hardship is likely to happen but it cannot confer any right unauthorised and permanent stay in a Government land. The rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which has been conferred for conducting business have not been infringed, they are protected and at the same time, it is the responsibility and duty of the appellants also herein to cooperate with the changes and for development of the State.

Earlier, also due to the intervention of this Court, the appellants continued their stay. Accordingly, 2(two) months’ time is granted to the appellants for vacating and handing over the said premises. This Court makes it clear that no further time will be granted for vacating the said premises.

Accordingly instant writ appeal stands dismissed and consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stands closed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) suhanjit