Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- KAUSIK CHANDA
Provisions considered
- Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 s. 177(1)
Judgment
Mr. Sandipan Banerjee Mr. Ankit Sureka …for Howrah Municipal Corporation Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Ms. Susmita Chatterjee …for the State It appears that a stop work notice was issued under Section 177(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as against an alleged unauthorised construction at premises no.13/2, Kailash Bose, 3rd Bye Lane, Howrah-711101 by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. The said stop work notice was followed by two subsequent show cause notices. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing the petitioner submits petitioner participated in the hearing and he made a representation for regularisation of the construction. Learned advocate appearing for Howrah Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, submits that after hearing the petitioner, the Howrah Municipal Corporation has turned down the prayer for 2 regularisation of the construction and a direction has been passed for issuance of a notice of self-demolition. The petitioner submits that he is not aware of such a notice. In view of the aforesaid, there is no need to keep this writ petition pending. The Corporation communicate petitioner the outcome of the hearing within a period of seven days from date. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision of the Corporation, it will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The Corporation shall not take any steps regarding the relevant construction unless and until the communication made in terms of this order. The petitioner shall also not create any third party interest over the property. Accordingly, WPA 28006 of 2024 is disposed of. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.