Full Judgment
T No.156 of 2012 WP No.………… of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE RAMESHWAR TRADERS PVT.LTD.& ANR.
Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, WEST BENGAL FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR ROY Date :
16. h November, 2012.
(Vacation Bench) Appearance: Mr.S.N.
Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv..for the petitioner Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.Mr.A.Mitra, Adv.Mr.A.Mondal, Adv..for the respondent Nos.14,15,16,17,18 & 19 Mr.A.Majumdar, Adv.Mr.Suman Sengupta, Adv..for the State of West Bengal Mr.Barin Banerjee, Adv.MRS.Sima Chakraborty, Adv.…for K.M.C.The Court : The writ petitioner has approached this Court against the inaction of the respondent authorities, namely, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Kolkata Police and West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, in No.2 taking any action against the private respondents, namely, respondent Nos.17, 18 and 19 for raising a temporary structure inside the premises No.2, Russel Street, Kolkata-700 071.
It is alleged that by raising the temporary structure out of bamboo and tarpaulin, the private respondents have stored there highly inflammable articles, namely, kerosene, diesel, cooking gas etc.and inside the temporary structure they are manufacturing various food iteMs.Although the Counsel appearing for the private respondents vehemently disputed such action but for the sake of justice, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to make an enquiry and to submit a report as to the state of affaiRs.The fiRs.report was submitted on 12th November, 2012.
Thereafter, pursuant to the further order of this Court made on that day, further inspection was taken and a report is submitted, which may be taken on record.
The relevant portion of the report is reproduced hereinbelow.
“As per inspection conducted on 12.11.2012 at about 2.30 P.M.at 2, Anandilal Poddar Sarani (formerly Russel Street).Kolkata-700 071 at ground floor by Station Officer, P.
Bhowmick and Station Officer, S.C.Mondal, it is observed that there are two temporary structures.
One structure is made up of bamboo and flame proof tarpaulin roof & wall.
There is another temporary structure made up of bamboo and tarpaulin extended with permanent structure with corrugated tin.
Presently space within these two structures is used as storing and packaging of sweets.
No kitchen was found inside the said temporary structure.
3 During the inspection it is found that no permission has been taken for erection of temporary structure in question.”
Now, going through the said report, it appears that there were two temporary structures, one was made up of bamboo and flameproof tarpaulin roof and wall and another made up of bamboo and tarpaulin extended with a permanent structure and inside the same, the private respondents were packing and storing sweets.
According to the said report, it is found that no permission was taken for erection of temporary structure in question from the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services authorities.
The learned Counsel for the State submitted that considering the nature of the temporary structure, according to the Fire Services authority, permission is required.
However, the learned Counsel for the private respondents vehemently disputed the same and submitted that no permission is required and before the question be adjudicated whether at all permission is necessary or not, he may be given an opportunity to contest the case by filing affidavits.
He further submitted that his clients have already dismantled that structure and had no intention to raise any further structure in near future.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that when it is found that the private respondents without obtaining permission has raised such temporary structure, necessary legal steps ought to be taken against them and they may be restrained from raising any such temporary structure in future at that place.
4 Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the issue pending before me is to be decided after exchange of affidavits.
Accordingly, I direct that this matter be placed before the regular Bench six weeks after the reopening of this Court after Puja vacation and in the meantime, affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks and reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
So far as the prayer made from the side of the petitioners that the private respondents be restrained from raising any structure in future without the permission of the statutory authority, in my opinion, it would be too premature to make such order.
However, I make it clear that the pendency of this writ application will not operate as a bar for the Fire Services authority to take appropriate legal action, if it is found that the petitioners are raising similar temporary structure without obtaining prior permission in accordance with law from the statutory authority, if so needed.
Similarly, it will also not prevent the petitioners to approach the Fire Services authority for permission in accordance with law for raising any temporary structure after fulfilling all statutory requirements.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) sb.
AR(CR)