Decided on May 06,1994



- (1.)This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by one Shri Binod Kumar Jain. It is stated in para 1 of the petition that he is an Advocate by profession and is practising at Gauhati Bar in the district of Kamrup. This application has been filed claiming it to be a public interest litigation claiming the following reliefs - (a) a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ should be issued for declaration of Ss. 322 to 342 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act 1969 as ultra vires the provisions of the Assam Town and Country Planning Act 1959, the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the Assam Land and Regulation Act and the Constitution of India; (b) issuance of a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction forbading the respondents from demolishing any type of construction within the City of Gauhati and from issuing any notice under the provision of S. 337 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act for demolition and from acting upon such notices, if any, issued for the time being; (c) issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order on the respondents to show cause as to why an inquiry Commission or any other judicial inquiry should not be ordered to assess the loss done by respondents by demolition and the excesses committed by them in effecting such demolition and after enquiry the land and buildings be restored to actual owners/occupiers by with suitable compensation. (d) issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order for rehabilitation of the occupiers if the land or buildings or houses are not restored to them. AND Pending disposal of this Rule, an interim stay/injunction order prohibiting or restraining the respondents, their employees, workmen, servants or agents from demolishing any type of construction in Gauhati City either in pursuant of any notice or otherwise is also prayed.
(2.)The first question to be determined in this case is whether this petition claiming to be a public interest litigation is at all maintainable. If this question is answered holding that it is not maintainable there is no necessity to go to the other aspects of the matter.
(3.)We have heard Mr. O. P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. B. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents, nor any record has been produced.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.