STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. PRANJIBAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice A. N. Sen, delivered on June 16, 1975 on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents in this appeal had asked for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State of West Bengal and others and each of them to forbear from making any or further construction of buildings and/or shop rooms in the gardens aid open space in the market known as Dr. B. C. Roy Market as indicated in the copy of the plan annexed to the petition. The respondents had also asked for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the state of West Bengal and other and each of them not to erect or construct any building or shop rooms in any portion of the market and to give any lease or licence or permission to any additional traders or businessmen who were not carrying on business therein. The respondents had also asked for a Writ in the nature of Prohibition.

(2.) THE case of the respondents is that they have taken lease of shop rooms in the market on the basis of certain representations. These representations were made to them orally. The representation would be established by the copy of the plan they had annexed to their petition, a copy of the plan has been on display in the market premises for more than twenty years. In the trial court the respondents obtained a Rule nisi and an interim order of injunction restraining the State of West Bengal and others from proceeding to make any further construction pending the rule. When the rule came up for hearing, on a proper consideration of relevant materials, a. N. Sen, J. was of opinion that the respondents should be relegated to a suit for establishing their claim particularly for establishing the representations alleged to have been made to them by the Executive Engineer of the Government on behalf of the authorities concerned.

(3.) THE learned judge was further satisfied on the materials on record that the respondents should be given a reasonable opportunity to file a suit for establishing their claim. In this view of the matter the learned judge became inclined to extend the interim order of injunction for a period of three months from June 16, 1975. The reason for extending the interim order for three months was that the respondents would serve in the meantime a notice under sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before filing a suit. The learned judge has observed further that if before the suit is instituted, construction is completed, a good deal of unnecessary complications will arise and the case of the respondents may, to a great extent be prejudiced in case they ultimately succeed in the suit. There may be questions of demolition of structures involving various complications and a good deal of inconvenience to the parties.