Chandan Roy,

Son of Late Prafullya Kumar Roy,

Village & Post Office – Debinagar,

Police Station – Raiganj,

District – Uttar Dinajpur. Complainant.



versus



1) Raiganj Municipality,

Represented by the Chairman,

Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.





2) The S. A. E.,

Raiganj Municipality,

Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. Opposite Parties.

Judgment

Date: 22.07.2009.

This complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant, Chandan Roy against the Opposite Parties /Men is bearing the allegation that he has submitted a site plan for erecting on his plot at Debinagar, which he urgently required for accommodate the St. John’s Ambulance, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, who expressed the desire to use the building after the same is constructed. That noticing no reply is coming from the Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality, Complainant issued two reminders and the third one through the Secretary, Raiganj Consumers Forum, An N.G.O., by Registered Post requesting to expedite the process of sanction of the Plan. He however, waiting for a considerable period for according the sanction of his Plan by the Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality. He started construction. He collected materials for the construction, but in the meantime Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality issued a notice to stop the construction work; it is alleged that the Act of the Municipality was whimsical, the contract between him and the St. John’s Ambulance was likely to be severed as he has failed to arrange accommodation for the said St. John’s Ambulance, society. So, this case has been filed praying for compensation of Rs.6,70,000/-(six lacs seventy thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) only.



Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality has contested the complaint by filing one Written Version. They have denied entire allegations leveled against them by the Complainant. It has denied specifically that Complainant ever filed any Plan to the Municipality for approval rather he has illegally raised one construction upon his land so the Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality issued notice on 24.12.2007 to the Complainant to stop the construction work and also directed to remove the illegal construction.



According to them the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum in terms of his prayer.





Decisions with reasons:



From the case of the parties, two pertinent questions do arise – one is, if the construction was allegedly undertaken by the Complainant without having a Plan sanction from the Municipality and the second is whether the Municipal Authority is justified by serving the notice of demolition.



Now, we see that the Complainant has submitted certain as documents as per list. The documents filed are: -



1) Original Received Copy of Site & Building Plan Signed by R.M. on 22.01.2008 [one sheet].



2) Original Received Copy of Complain Signed by the Raiganj Municipality on 25.03.2008 [one sheet].

3) Original Received Copy of Letter signed by the Raiganj Municipality on 26.04.2008 [one sheet].



4) Xerox Copy of Agreement Signed by the Complainant and St. John’s Ambulance [two sheets].



5) Xerox Copy of Complaint dated 28.04.2008 along with Postal Registered Receipt [two sheets].



6) Original Holding Receipt of the Complainant [Chandan Roy] along with Khatian [two sheets].



7) Original Holding Receipt of Profullya Kumar Roy along with Khatian [four sheets].



8) Carbon Copy of Site Plan [one sheet].



And the Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality has filed a Xerox copy of notice issued Under Section 203, 204 and 220 of Bengal Municipal Act on 24.12.2007 to the Complainant.



Here, we do find from the documents filed on behalf of Complainant that he submitted a Plan for Site and Building before the Municipal Authority. One staff named B. Pandit received the same with the official seal of the Municipality on 22.01.2008. His further case is that he sent two reminders and the last one through an N.G.O. to the Municipality, requesting to take appropriate action regarding sanction of his Plan. Xerox copy of the letter dated 25.03.2008 and the letter dated 28.04.2008 issued by the N.G.O. are also taken in to consideration. The letter dated 25.03.2008 was received by the same B. Pandit with affixing there the official seal of the Municipality. There is also another reminder dated 25.04.2008 sent to the Municipal Authority by the Complainant. Here also B. Pandit received the letter with official seal of the Municipality. So, we find that two reminders were submitted by hand to hand with the Municipal Authority, whereas the third one was sent by the Registered Post. Postal receipt filed along with the copy of the letter also taken in to consideration. Complainant alleged that he waited for more than two months for receiving sanction of the Plan, only when the sanction order was not received by him even after two months from the date of his submission of the Plan with Municipal Authority, he undertook the construction.



The case of the Opposite Party/ Municipality is when the Complainant under took the construction, he was not armed with valid and legal Site and Building Plan, that is why issued the notice on 24.12.2007 to stop the construction. Now, it appears from the documents filed by the both sides that all the papers coming form the side of the Complainant are dated after 24.12.2007. It goes to suggest that the Stop Construction Notice was served with the Complainant; Complainant has taken all the actions, which are evident from the bunch of documents he has filed in this case. It is very much clear that the Complainant has submitted one Site and Building Plan only when he was debarred from going on with his construction under a notice served upon him by the Municipal Authority.



The Complainant has failed to produce and show any Plan of Site and Building prior to 24.12.2007 or he undertook the construction of his building according to any Plan sanctioned by the Municipal Authority prior to 24.12.2007. The documents he has filed have no relevance to the disputed construction.



In the circumstances, this Forum holds that no illegality has been done from the side of the Municipal Authority, when it served a Notice of Stop Construction and demolition of it. Admittedly, the Complainant did not comply with the notice dated 24.12.2007 rather by submitting one Site and Building Plan on receipt of the said notice he has come before this Forum and desires the Forum to take action on the Plan, a power which can only be exercised by the Municipal Authority.



So, it appears from our above discussion that the Complainant started the construction first and thereafter filed a Plan of Site and Building in the office of Municipality of the said construction, which is not at all permissible under the Municipal Act.



Finally, this Forum takes the view that the case of the Complainant is without any merit as such he is not entitled to get an award from this Forum.



Fees paid are correct.



Hence, ordered,



That the complaint is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand) only to be paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party/ Raiganj Municipality.



The Municipal Authority may consider the Plan which the Complainant submitted before it on 22.01.2008 upon taking a lenient view of the situation already discussed above.