Tabrez Hussain v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS
Sl. 1 08.05.2025 Port Blair Court No.6 BP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR WPA 236 of 2025 Tabrez Hussain -versusThe Andaman and Nicobar Administration & Ors.
Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ..for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ..for the respondent nos.
1 to 3 Ms. Anjali Nag Mr. K. Bhawani ..for the private respondent This matter was mentioned today at the first sitting of the Court by Mr. Jayapal citing grave urgency. Considering the urgency pleaded by Mr. Jayapal this matter was directed to appear in the supplementary list today.
Accordingly the matter is appearing in supplementary list and Mr. Jayapal has intimated the time of hearing of the writ petition upon the learned advocates for the respective parties.
Mr.
Chakraborty, learned senior advocate representing the Andaman and Nicobar Administration raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition. He submits that by the stay order dated 15th April, the Executive Engineer (Planning), Municipal Council only directed the petitioner to appear before the Executive Engineer on
the date and time specified in the said order along with relevant documents. He submits that a decision of the authority on such issue is an appealable order under the relevant regulation. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is a premature one.
Mr. Jayapal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is raising construction after obtaining sanctioned building plan and the said construction is not made in violation of any regulation. He submits that the Executive Engineer do not have any authority under the relevant regulation to issue such an order.
Ms. Nag, learned advocate appears for the fourth respondent. She submits that the petitioner herein is raising construction in violation of the building plan and the relevant regulation. She submits that the fourth respondent has lodged a complaint in that regard before the competent authority of the Municipal Council pursuant to which the stay order was passed.
However, without entering into the merits of the claims and counter claims raised by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner is directed to appear before the Executive Engineer (Planning), Municipal Council being the 3rd respondent in this writ petition on 16th May, 2025 on or about 3 p.m. along with all relevant documents namely, copy of
the approval of the building plan, land record showing the ownership over the land in question and demarcation report, if available etc.
It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all points before the Executive Engineer (Planning), Municipal Council at the time of hearing on the issues raised in the order dated 15th April, 2025.
The Executive Engineer (Planning), Municipal Council being the third respondent is directed afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent or their authorized representatives and to dispose of the issue raised in the order dated 15th April, 2025 by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of hearing fixed by this Court. The said order shall be communicated to the parties immediately thereafter.
Since the date and time of hearing has been fixed by the Court in presence of the learned advocate for the respective parties there will be no necessity to issue any further notice upon the private parties.
With the above observations and directions, WPA 236 of 2025 stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)