Ranbeer Bose vs Anita Das

2024 INSC 379 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 7071 OF 2024)

DR. RANBEER BOSE & ANR. .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ANITA DAS & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in this appeal seek to assail the order dated

20th February, 2024 passed by the learned Division Bench of the

High Court of Calcutta in MAT No.2124 of 2023. By the said order,

the learned Division Bench rejected the appeal preferred by the

appellants and affirmed the order dated 5th October, 2023 passed

by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in

Contempt Petition No.694 of 2022 in WPA No. 24206 of 2019, Signature Not Verified

wherein the following directions were issued:- Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.05.03 17:06:28 IST Reason:

“Mr. Krishnendu Narayan Choudhury, Chairman, English Bazar Municipality is personally present in Court.

1 Time has been sought for by the learned senior advocate representing the alleged contemnor to comply the direction passed by the Court.

On such request the matter stands adjourned till 30th November 2023.

The order of the Court shall be complied and fresh affidavit of compliance be filed on the adjourned date.

On the assurance given by the learned senior advocate representing the alleged contemnor, the personal appearance of the alleged contemnor stands dispensed with for the time being.”

3. The appellants have raised a grievance that the directions

issued by the learned Single Judge in the contempt petition have

a direct bearing on their residential premises. It is contended that

the private respondent(respondent No.1 herein), filed the writ

petition before the learned Single Judge alleging that while raising

the construction of the residential property, the appellants did not

maintain the open spaces prescribed under Rule 50 of the West

Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007(hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Rules of 2007’) .

4. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellants, urged that the learned Single Judge was not

justified in entertaining the writ petition which raised a purely

private dispute between two neighbours. He further submitted

that acting under the pressure of the contempt proceedings, the

2 municipal authorities have issued a show cause notice to the

appellants with the observation that the building raised by the

appellants herein is in contravention of Rule 50 of the Rules of

2007. His contention is that there being no allegation that the

building was constructed in violation of the sanctioned building

plan, the notice by itself is without jurisdiction. He also urged that

under the pressure of contempt proceedings, the municipal

authorities are bent upon passing an adverse order for

demolishing the construction raised by the appellants herein on

their plot, which was in strict compliance of the sanctioned

building plan. He, thus, urged that the appellants herein may be

given liberty to challenge the enquiry report dated 16th October,

2023 and the show cause notice dated 24th April, 2024 by taking

recourse to the provisions contained in West Bengal Municipal Act,

1993.

5. However, his submission is that the municipal authorities are

likely to be prejudiced by the contempt proceedings as they are

acting under the pressure thereof and thus, the appellants will not

get a fair chance to contest the notice.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently

opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

3 appellants. He urged that the learned Single Judge, after extensive

consideration of the material available on record has found that

the sanctioned building plan was violated by the appellants while

raising construction of their residential premises and as such, the

direction to conduct an enquiry into the matter was justified.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the materials

placed on record.

8. We express our reservations on the exercise of writ

jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Calcutta in a controversy, which appears to be a purely private

dispute between the appellants herein and the private

respondent(respondent No.1 herein), being immediate neighbours.

9. Prima facie, we are of the view that if at all the private

respondent(respondent No.1 herein) was aggrieved of irregularity

committed, if any, in the construction raised by the appellants on

their own plot, the appropriate remedy for him would have been to

approach the municipal authorities and if no proper response was

forthcoming, then the civil Court was the appropriate forum for

ventilating the grievances of the nature which have been raised

before the writ Court.

4

10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that now the enquiry

report has been presented before the High Court of Calcutta by the

municipal authorities. As per the enquiry report dated 16th

October 2023, the construction made by the appellants has not

been found to be in violation of the building plan and rather, it has

been mentioned that the sanction plan to construct the building

was granted in violation of Rule 50 of the Rules of 2007.

11. Indisputably, the appellants have a right to challenge the said

enquiry report and the show cause notice. Hence, we leave the

appellants at liberty to challenge the show cause notice dated 24th

April, 2024 and the enquiry report(s) by resorting to the provisions

contained in the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

12. Needless to say that the objections so raised by the appellants

will be considered and decided objectively without being prejudiced

by either the pending contempt proceedings or the orders passed

in the writ proceedings. It may be noted that as per sub-clause(3)

of Section 218 of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, in case the

objections raised by the appellants do not find favour of the Board

of Councillors, they would have a right to file an appeal in the

Court having jurisdiction.

13. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

5

14. No order as to costs.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA)

New Delhi;

May 03, 2024

6