✦ Calcutta High Court

March 22 v. The Andaman and Nicobar

Wpa No. 138 of 2021SHEKHAR B SARAF

Case at a glance

Bench
SHEKHAR B SARAF

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. KMB Jayapal Mr. Salim Mohammed Mr. Arul Prasanth Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the petitioner … for the Administration … for the PMBC … for the Pvt. respondent This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in implementing the order dated 18th January, 2021. Upon perusal of the documents, I notice that the order of January 18, 2021 is an order requiring the private respondent to show cause within seven days with regard to the alleged illegal construction having been carried out by him. It appears further from the affidavit in opposition that by an order dated February 24, 2021 an order of self-demolition within a period of 30 days has been passed by the authority concerned. This order has been challenged by the private respondent in appeal. In light of the above facts, it is clear that the writ petition has been prematurely filed and does not have any legs to stand on, after the order dated 24th February, 2021 has been passed. The writ petition is now infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 2 The parties shall be at liberty to approach the various forums in accordance with law. ( Shekhar B. Saraf, 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Wpa No. 138 of 2021). ← Search more judgments