SK. YUSUF HOSSAIN Vs. BURDWAN MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order said to have been passed by the Chairman, Burdwan Municipality on 22nd Aug., 2002, which was done pursuant to the order of this Court passed by His Lordship Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya on 18th July, 2002 on a writ petition filed by the petitioner being No. W.P. 9687 (W)/2002. The short narration of the fact is required to be made in order to understand the case in a better way. The petitioner applied for a sanction of a building plan to the Municipality on 9th Aug., 2000 and this will appear from a document being P2, a letter of the Vice-Chairman dated 11th June, 2002. It was the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of submission of the plan and in spite of statutory period of 60 days having been allowed to be expired the Municipal authority did not either sanction to the building plan nor refused it. However, the refusal came in after expiry of that statutory period, namely almost after 2 years from the date of submission of the building plan.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action the petitioner came to this Court on earlier occasion and Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya was pleased to pass the order as quoted above and the text whereof is set out hereunder:

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order the present impugned order is said to have been passed. The learned lawyer for the petitioner apart from other grievance has raised fundamental objection drawing my attention to the averments made in Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the petition, that in terms of the aforesaid order the Chairman himself was obliged to hear this matter. However, the matter was not heard out by him, rather it was done by the Law Officer and some other Engineers. I have examined the averments made in the Paragraphs 21 and 22 and such allegations have been made specifically. He contends that, therefore, the order has not been passed lawfully as it was desired to be done by this Court. I accept his submission that the matter should be or should have been heard by the Chairman alone and none else. It is settled position of the law, if anything is to be done under the law under one way the same shall be done in that way, not otherwise. Therefore, I examined the version on factual aspect of the respondent as to who has heard out this matter. Affidavit-in-Opposition has been filed by the respondents and the same has been affirmed by one Tanmoy Tah being the Law Officer of the Burdwan Municipality. He has dealt with Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the petition in Paragraphs 10 and 11, which are set out hereunder :