Calcutta High Court
Primelink Tradecom Llp And Anr vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 1 May, 2025
OD-7 ORDER SHEET
WPO/1234/2024
IA NO: GA/1/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
PRIMELINK TRADECOM LLP AND ANR.
VS
THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date: 1st May, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. BikashRanjanBhattacharjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. SoumyaMajumdar, Adv.
Mr. ShounakMukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. KallolSaha, Adv.
Mr. Akash Ghosh, Adv
Ms. Sweta Bhatta, Adv.
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
...for KMC.
Ms. Sukla Das Chandra, Adv.
...for State.
Mr. Sudarsan Roy, Adv.
Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. DiptarkaMajumder, Adv.
Ms. Roshmi Ghosh, Adv.
...for Respondent nos. 6 to 14.
Mr. S.K. Poddar, Adv.
…for Respondent nos.15 & 16.
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mrs. Sonali Ghosh Basu, Adv.
Mr. RishavKarnani, Adv.
…for Respondent no.17.
Mr. RaghunathChakraboruty, Adv.
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
…for Respondent no.18.
2
The Court:- The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition,
wherein he seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 4 th
December, 2024, and the consequent letter dated 16 th December, 2024. The
aforementioned impugned order dated 4 th December, 2024, passed by the
competent municipal authority in exercise of its power under Section 416 (5) of
the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
The Petitioner in the present case is challenging the demolition order
passed by the Respondent Municipality under Section 416(5) of the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Section 416 (6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, provides
an express statutory remedy to any person aggrieved by an order passed
under, inter alia, Section 416(5) of the Act. The said appellate remedy lies
before the Municipal Building Tribunal, a specialised quasi-judicial forum
constituted for the adjudication of disputes arising in relation to municipal
construction activities, building regulations, and orders pertaining to
demolition or sealing of structures
The provision under Section 416 (6) reads as follows:
“Any person aggrieved by an order of the Municipal
Corporation under sub-section (5) may, within thirty days from
the date of the order, prefer an appeal against the order to the
Municipal Building Tribunal appointed under Section 415.”
Thus, the impugned order is evidently one against which a statutory
appeal lies before the Municipal Building Tribunal. This Court is, therefore,
of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable at
3
this stage, in light of the existence of an efficacious and alternative statutory
remedy, expressly provided under the governing municipal legislation.
It is well-settled in law that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be invoked where an
alternative statutory remedy exists, save and except in cases where such
remedy is shown to be illusory or inefficacious, or where there is a gross
violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the impugned action
suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, no such
exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated so as to warrant
interference under Article 226.
Consequently, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is granted
liberty to avail of the appellate remedy provided under Section 415 of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, before the Learned Municipal
Building Tribunal. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, and in view of the above direction, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
The connected application being GA/1/2025, also stands disposed of.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
nm
[ad_1]
Source link