Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 03, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1059305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1059305
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Soumitra Pal
Decided On: Jul 03, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

.....has been made by encroaching on the private common passage and the garage has been converted into a commercial space. submission has been made that since a representation dated 12th january, 2010 was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the municipal commissioner of the corporation, the respondent no.2, appropriate order may be passed. heard mr.barin banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner and mr.achintya banerjee, learned advocate for the kolkata municipal corporation. despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the private respondent. having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the municipal commissioner of the corporation, the respondent no.2 or his delegatee to dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order to be communicated to the parties within eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the signed copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent and to the other interested parties and after verifying the records. it is made clear that i have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent no.2 or his delegatee. till the reasoned order is passed and communicated, the respondent no.4 is restrained from making any construction and from parking his car on the common passage. no order as to costs. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photo copy of this order on the usual undertakings. (soumitra pal, j.) ssaha ar(cr)

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET W.P.No.204 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SAMIR MUKHERJEE & ORS.Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.Defendant/Respondent BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :

3. d July, 2012.

For Petitioner :Mr.Barin Banerjee,Advocate Mr.C.K.Saha,Advocate For KMC: Mr.Achintya Banerjee,Advocate Ms.Piyali Sengupta,Advocate The Court : In the writ petition, the petitioner, who is a resident of premises no.293/2 Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata- 700034, has prayed for a direction upon the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, to take steps against the construction allegedly raised by the private respondent no.4 at premises no.293/4, Diamond Harbour Road which is adjacent to his premises since, construction has been made by encroaching on the private common passage and the garage has been converted into a commercial space.

Submission has been made that since a representation dated 12th January, 2010 was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation, the respondent no.2, appropriate order may be passed.

Heard Mr.Barin Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Achintya Banerjee, learned advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the private respondent.

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation, the respondent no.2 or his delegatee to dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order to be communicated to the parties within eight weeks from the date of presenting a copy of the signed copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent and to the other interested parties and after verifying the records.

It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent no.2 or his delegatee.

Till the reasoned order is passed and communicated, the respondent no.4 is restrained from making any construction and from parking his car on the common passage.

No order as to costs.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photo copy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) ssaha AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2012 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Soumitra Pal