ARATI BASU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the Memo No, 1562, dated 18/19.1.1989 issued from the Chief Valuer and Surveyor's Department, Calcutta Municipal Corporation is under challenge. By this Memo the Corporation intimated the petitioner that the building plan submitted by her in respect of premises No. 48A, Badridas Temple Street, Calcutta cannot be sanctioned due to a scheme for opening out a Park covering the entire premises in question as per resolution of the Borough Committee II, dated 17.8.87 and action is being taken for implementation of the said scheme.

(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Borough Committees have no such function to exercise. The functions of the Borough Committees are specifically stated in sub-section (6) of the said Section and in no way those relate to opening out a park or making out any such scheme on the part of any Borough Committee.

(3.) Mr. Chakraborty, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation, submits that sub-section (6) empowers the Borough Committees to start such other functions as the Corporation may from time to time determine by the regulations, and in support of his contention he places Regulation 36 of the Conduct of Business of the Borough Committee Regulations, 1987, which, inter alia, indicates that a Borough Committee may bring any of its resolution to the notice of the Mayor and that on receipt of such resolution the Mayor may take such action as he deems fit. But Mr. Chakraborty has not placed before the Court any resolution or Order of the Corporation by which it empowered the Borough Committees to under take the work of recommending the creation of any Park for the public or any such determination by the Corporation to that effect.