Shyamali Dutta @ Shyamali Dutta (Paul) v. Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Municipal Affairs And ORS

30.07.2025 Sl. No.11 Ct.3/ tkm W.P.A. 16101 of 2024 Shyamali Dutta @ Shamali Dutta (Paul) Vs Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Municipal Affairs & Ors.

Mr. Naba Kr. Das Mr. Parvez Mallick Mr. Debayan Roy Chowdhury Mr. S Sil ...for the petitioner Mr. Susanta Pal Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar ...for respondent no. 2

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not refunding the excess fees paid by the petitioner through GRIPS e-Challan dated 10.5.2025 for change of category from residential to non-residential/ commercial purpose with regard to plot no. B4/291 at Kalyani Township.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the lawful owner of the aforementioned plot of land by virtue of a transfer deed dated 24.7.2007. Pursuant to an approved sanctioned building plan, the petitioner constructed a three storied building on the said plot.

3. By a letter dated 10.5.2022, the Estate Manager, Kalyani directed the petitioner to deposit a sum

of Rs. 1,52,880/- towards the permission fees for non-residential usage in respect of the said premises.

4. Inadvertently, the petitioner deposited the said amount under an incorrect head of account of the respondent, numbered as 0217-60-800-00127 instead of the designated head of account being numbered as 0217-60-800-001-16 as per GRN dated 10.5.2022.

5. Upon realizing the error, the petitioner duly deposited the permission fees again within a span of three days to the correct head of an amount of Rs. 1,52,880/-. Consequently, having made a double payment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.10.2022 to the respondent authority, requesting for refund of the excess amount. However, no action has been taken on the said representation till date.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the authorities are ready and willing to decide petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2022.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied if the same is decided within a time bound manner.

8. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court directs

respondent no.

to decide petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2022, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, by way of a speaking order.

9. With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

10.

Since no affidavit is called for, allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)