BAIJNATH SHAW Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties.

(2.) THREE writ petitioners have joined together to file the instant writ petition challenging the order of suspension of building plan duly approved by Kanchrapara Municipality on 12th March, 2008. The said order was issued by the Chairman of Kanchrapara Municipality on -9th april, 2009. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, they had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W. P. No. 1174 (W) of 2009. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. It has been observed by the Court in the said order that after granting sanction of building plan by the Municipal authorities, the said authorities had no right even to interfere, if construction was carried on in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, if there was any deviation, it was observed that the Court's order dated 2nd April, 2009 would not stand in the way of the Municipal authorities to cause an enquiry into the matter and take steps in accordance with the provisions of law.

(3.) IT appears that after the said order was passed by the Court on 2nd April, 2009, the Chairman of the Kanchrapara Municipality issued the impugned order dated 9th April, 2009, whereby the building plan approved by the Chairman on 12th March, 2008 was temporarily suspended due to suppression of. fact. In the said order, the Chairman of Kanchrapara municipality also observed that it was a -matter of regret that the writ petitioners had submitted plan for approval without showing the existing structure in their holding which must be demolished, after taking permission from the Municipality. It was also observed by the Chairman that the writ petitioners have neglected or suppressed fact, which was unwanted. .