CALCUTTA DIOCEASIN TRUST ASSOCIATION P Vs. MRINAL CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the same order, passed by a learned single Judge of this court, dated 2nd July, 1992 in C.O. No. 6261 (W) of 1992. The two appeals are at the instances of the respondents to the main writ application. The appellants in FMAT 2453 of 1992 were impleaded as parties to the writ application and the appellant in FMAT No. 2285 of 1992 had been added as party on the date the impugned order had been passed, on the basis of an application preferred on behalf of the appellant for such addition on 18th of June, 1992.

(2.) The subject matter of challenge before the learned trial Judge was a notice, issued by the Burdwan Municipality, asking the writ petitioner to stop the work of construction in terms of a plan sanctioned by the said Municipality on the ground that there was scope for some doubt about leasehold right of the land and/or as regards validity of the grant.

(3.) As we have already indicated, the learned trial Judge disposed of the Writ application by setting aside and quashing the impugned notice on the same date the appellant in FMAT No. 2285 of 1992 had been added as a party, obviously without any opportunity being granted to it to canvass its case through affidavit. While doing so the learned trial Judge construed the provisions of sections 324 and 333 of the Bengal Municipal Act and came to a factual finding that the required criteria in terms of the said statutory provision being absent in the case, the notice issued by the Municipality was untenable and illegal.