Minati Chakraborty v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

12.06.2023 d.p.

In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 28621 of 2022 Minati Chakraborty -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya.

...For the Petitioner.

Mr. Sandip Ghosh, Mr. Sudarsan Roy, Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Mr. Romit Bose, Mr. Diptarka Majumder.

...For the Municipality.

Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Ms. Pui Karmakar.

...For KMDA.

Ms. Sipra Majumdar, Ms. Sangeeta Roy.

...For the State.

The petitioner alleges that the State authority has disconnected water supply connection to the petitioner's premises as the petitioner did not intend to hand over her plot of land for acquisition.

It has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the police on 18th August, 2022 as she did not give in to the demand of handing over her plot of land to the State authority.

The petitioner submitted objection from time to time against such disconnection with request to

reconnect the same, but the water supply has not been restored.

The petitioner submits that the tax in respect of the subject plot is regularly being paid by the petitioner and accepted by the municipal authority.

Learned advocate appearing for the North Dum Dum Municipality submits, upon instructions, that the water supply of the petitioner may have been disrupted on account of the ongoing project of construction of Barrackpore Dum Dum Expressway named as Kalyani Expressway.

It has been submitted that on an earlier occasion the Municipal Authority restored the water supply connection of the petitioner.

It has been asserted before this Court that the Municipality did not disconnect the water supply of the petitioner.

Learned advocate appearing for the KMDA submits, upon instructions, that the water supply section of KMDA has not executed any work nearby the house of the petitioner and KMDA is not related to the work of construction of the Belgharia Express Highway Flyover. The KMDA is in no way responsible for damaging the water connection of the petitioner. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of all the parties that the water connection of the petitioner may have been disrupted on account of the construction of the Expressway.

The Highway authority is the body responsible for constructing the Highway. The Highway authority is not arraigned as party respondent in the present writ petition.

Neither the State authority, the Municipality nor the KMDA are responsible for disruption of the water connection of the petitioner.

In view of the above, the Municipality is directed to take steps to immediately restore the water connection to the petitioner's premises.

Steps shall be taken in the matter positively within a period of seven days from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J.)