Birsa Munda v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration, Port Blair And ORS

Sl. No.01 20.12.2024 Suman Ct. 15 Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Port Blair Appellate Side WPA 716 of 2024 Shri Birsa Munda Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair and Ors.

Mr. K. M. B. Jaypal Mr. Ausham Venkatesh ..for the petitioner Mr. Sandip Prasad Shaw Mr. M. S. Younis Mr. Amar Kumar Singh .for the added respondent Mr. Shaswal Nayak ..for the added respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar ..for the respondents The petitioner claims to be the license holder of a property located at 123/17, Austinabad, Port Blair. He contends that the Municipality intends to demolish the said property without issuing him a notice to execute a demolition order dated November 29, 2024.

In contrast, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate representing the respondents, submits that a notice was served on one Naveen Toppo, who participated in the hearing. Following the issuance of the demolition order, Naveen Toppo filed an appeal under Section 187

of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulation, 1994. It is further asserted that the writ petitioner has no right in the property in question. He also contends that the demolition order is being executed in accordance with the order dated August 6, 2024, passed in WPA 333 of 2024 by this High Court.

Mr. Jaypal, learned advocate for the petitioner, argues that as the license holder of the relevant property, the Municipality was obligated to issue a notice to him.

At this stage, I refrain from addressing the disputes raised by the parties before this Court. Since an appeal is pending against the demolition order dated November 29, 2024, and has not yet been disposed of, I grant the petitioner the liberty to file an application before the Appellate Authority seeking appropriate relief. If such an application is made within two weeks from date, it shall be considered in accordance with the law.

In light of the above, I restrain the respondents from executing the demolition order for a period of one month from the date of this order.

The continuation of the demolition order after the expiration of one month shall be at the discretion of the Appellate Authority.

I make it clear that I have not addressed the merits of the case. It is desirable that the Appellate Authority dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of this order, without being influenced by this order. Accordingly, WPA 716 of 2024 is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)