Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 241 (CAL)

Subhash Chandra Banik v. Burdwan Municipality

2013-05-07

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2013
Judgment : The Court : The petitioners in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated April 29, 2013 are seeking the following the principal relief:- “a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents in particular the Chairman of the Municipality to withdraw cancel and/or rescind forthwith the impugned Memo No.359/LM dated 2nd April, 2013 and 369/LM dated 16th April, 2013, and to refrain from giving any effect or any further effect to the same in any form or manner.” The letters dated April 2, 2013 and April 16, 2013 referred to in prayer (a) are at pp.115 and 118 respectively of the WP. Both the letters were written to the petitioners by the Chairman of Burdwan Municipality in connection with their application under s.205 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 for plan to erect building. The relevant parts of the letter dated April 2, 2013 are quoted below:- “In reference to above, this is to inform you that the plan submitted by you is not in accordance to the norms, as such the same could not be docketed and the order for return has been passed. You are not permitted to start any construction on the schedule plot without proper sanction of the undersigned.” The relevant parts of the letter dated April 16, 2013 are quoted below:- “In reply to above, this is to inform you that as the plan was not in accordance with the norms of West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 and West Bengal Municipal Rules 2007, the same has been returned. For further enquiry regarding the same, you may contact Sri Prasanta Mukherjee, Engineer-in-Charge, BM, at your earliest. You are not permitted to start any construction on the schedule plot without proper sanction of the undersigned.” Mr Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has submitted that evident vagueness of the decisions of the Chairman in that he did not mention which norm the application submitted by the petitioners did not fulfil, has landed the petitioners into great troubles. Mr Bhattacharya appearing for the Municipality has strenuously argued that the Chairman of the Municipality has not refused sanction, but has given the petitioners an opportunity to remove the defects in the application. He has said that the Chairman will decide the application after hearing the petitioners. Section 205 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 is quoted below:- “205. Mr Bhattacharya appearing for the Municipality has strenuously argued that the Chairman of the Municipality has not refused sanction, but has given the petitioners an opportunity to remove the defects in the application. He has said that the Chairman will decide the application after hearing the petitioners. Section 205 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 is quoted below:- “205. Application with building plan to erect or re-erect building.– Every person, who intends to erect or re-erect a building, shall first submit an application with a building plan in such form, accompanied by such plans and specifications, and containing such information, as may be prescribed or as may be required by the rules made under section 198.” Sub-section (1) of s.207 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 is quoted below:- “207(1).–Within sixty days after the receipt of any application with building plan or of any information or document which the Board of Councillors may reasonably require the applicant to furnish before deciding whether sanction shall be accorded in this regard, the Board of Councillors shall, by written order, – (a) either accord sanction to the building plan conditionally or unconditionally and give permission to execute the work, or (b) refuse, on one of the grounds mentioned in section 210, to accord such sanction, or (c) accord sanction but impose conditions for compliance before permission to execute the work.” The grounds on which an application for sanction submitted under s.205 can be rejected are the ones mentioned s.210 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. It is evident from the two decisions the Chairman gave that he actually refused sanction without stating for what reason he reached the conclusion that the application did not fulfil the requisite norms. Which norm the application did not fulfil was not mentioned in the decisions. Instead of giving the appropriate decision in the discharge of his statutory duties, the Chairman quite unauthorisedly referred the petitioners to an engineer of the Municipality. Such an approach is destructive of the administrative structure and bound to breed corruption. The Chairman ought to have passed an order stating the reasons in detail. Instead of giving the appropriate decision in the discharge of his statutory duties, the Chairman quite unauthorisedly referred the petitioners to an engineer of the Municipality. Such an approach is destructive of the administrative structure and bound to breed corruption. The Chairman ought to have passed an order stating the reasons in detail. It is to be noted that though the provisions of s.207 of the Act empower only the Board of Councillors of a Municipality to deal with and decide an application for sanction submitted under s.205, in this case the Chairman of the Municipality dealt with and decided the application. Mr Bhattacharya has submitted that he has received specific instructions to submit that the Board of Councillors empowered to delegate its powers has delegated its s.207 power to the Chairman of the Municipality. The Board of Councillors could delegate the power under s.20A of the Act. For these reasons, I set aside both the decisions dated April 2, 2013 and April 16, 2013, allow the WP to this extent and direct the Chairman (if he is no longer empowered, then the Board of Councillors) to decide the petitioners’ s.205 application for sanction afresh, after hearing them, within three weeks from the date this order is served. No costs.