WP(C) 1644/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER In addition to the assailment of the notice dated 8.4.2009 under Sectio n 382(1) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 ( hereafter referred to as the ’Act’) issued by the Addl. Commissioner of the Guwahati Municipal Corpo ration, Guwahati( for short hereafter referred to as the ’Corporation’), the pet itioners have also sought for an appropriate writ and/or direction to constitute an independent body to inquire into the genuineness or otherwise of the No Obje ction Certificates ( for short ’NOC’) issued by the Corporation as well as the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority( hereafter referred to as ’Authority ’ for short) in Uzanbazar under Ward No.34, more particularly of Padumpukhuri an d Rajbari areas and to cause reassessment /measurement of those buildings rai sed with genuine NOCs. An appropriate direction to the Corporation to ascertai n as to whether the judgment and order dated 23.11.07 passed by a Division Ben ch of this Court in WP( C) No.3385/2007 has been complied with or not has also b een sought for. 2. I have heard Ms A.Sharma, petitioner in person, Mr HK Barman, learn ed State counsel for the State of Assam, Mr D Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Mr R.Sarma, learned counsel for the Respondent N o.6 and Mr Subodh Sarma representing the Respondent No.7, Mahanagar Unnayan Sami ty. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioners in brief, is that, they are the residents of Ujanbazar, Guwahati and own a building thereat since January, 2006. The petitioner No.1 is an Advocate by profession and the petitioner No.2 is a Technical Advisor and Consultant to various central departments and Publ ic Sector Units. According to the petitioners, the Respondent No.6 , who is also an Advocate , from the very inception of their shifting to Ujanbazar had been h arassing them. He constructed his house intruding into their premises and also e ngaged rowdy elements to threaten them. Repeated complaints by the petitioners w ith the authorities of the Corporation and the police having failed to evoke a ny response, they approached the Assam Human Rights Commission ( for short here after referred to as the ’Commission’) which eventually after a determination ma de by it , sustained their plea of violation of their human rights and directed the Corporation, the Authority and the police to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Following the above, the Respondent No.6 approached this C ourt with WP( C) No.3385/2007 impugning inter alia the notice dated 22.6.07 of the Corporation holding that his (Respondent No.6’s ) building( of which the pe titioners had made complaints) was unauthorized in absence of any permission and valid NOC from the competent authority This Court vide judgment and order d ated 23.11.2007 disposed of the said writ petition in which the petitioners her ein were impleaded as Respondent Nos 7 and 8, by directing the Corporation to de molish the portion of the building of the Respondent No.6 which stood in devi ation and violation of the relevant provisions and norms prescribed by the Act a nd the Building Byelaws framed thereunder. This direction was issued on the basi s of a report prepared by a group of engineers of the Corporation and submitted before the Court following an inspection of the said building and incorporat ed in the affidavit dated 15.11.2007 filed by it. Significantly, though the D ivision Bench of this Court integrated the impugned notice in its decision which clearly mentioned the NOC on the basis of which the Respondent No.6, had cons tructed his building in question to be a forged document and that the petitio ners had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Latashil Police Station on 9.11.06 for investigation and necessary action, it did not adjudge the same(b uilding as a whole to be illegal rendering it liable for demolition for want of an approved plan and necessary permission at the time of its construction. Thi s was inter alia , in view of the finding recorded that the building had been r aised with the knowledge of the concerned authorities amongst others of the Cor poration and had not only been assessed , but taxes were collected therefor as well. 4. The petitioners have alleged that even thereafter at the behest of the Respondent No.6 , the authorities of the Corporation resorted to a chai n of actions subjecting them to unnecessary harassment by issuing repeated n otices requiring them to produce documents for inspection and verification, rea ssessment and survey of their building etc. This was vide the notices dated 2 3.5.07, 6.3.09 and 8.4.09 impugned herein. According to the petitioners, thou gh in response to the notice dated 6.3.09 they had submitted all relevant docum ents and had objected to the unwarranted actions of the Corporation, it has ma intained its highhanded disposition towards them. It is , in this background , that judicial intervention for the above reliefs has been sought for. 5. The Respondent No.2 , the Municipal Secretary of the Corporation in his affidavit , while denying the allegation of harassment made, has stated in categorical terms that the unauthorized portion of the building of the Respo ndent No.6 has already been demolished in deference to the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 23.11.07 passed in WP( C ) No.3395/07 as would be evidenced from the Inspection Report dated 18.7.08. He has asserted that st eps have been taken by the Corporation in response to the complaints lodged by the Respondent No.6 vide letters dated 29.2.08 and 7.5.08 alleging unauthoriz ed construction by the petitioners. According to the answering respondent, noti ces dated 6.3.09 and 8.4.09 had been issued for inspection and measurement of the building of the petitioners and not for reassessment thereof as alleged. The above notwithstanding, not only did the petitioners not cooperate with the Corp oration and its representatives , as a matter of fact, they resisted such steps which in view of the nature of the imputations made they were bound to take i n law. According to this respondent , the present proceeding by the petitioner s is a ploy to obstruct the Corporation and its authorities to take action agai nst them if found to be indulging in unauthorized constructions in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Building Bye laws. 6. The Respondent No.6 while questioning the bonafide of the peti tioners in instituting the instant proceeding and also the maintainability the reof amongst others for non joinder of necessary parties, in view the omnibus al legations made in the writ petition seeking to raise a public issue imputing mu shroom growth of illegal constructions with forged NOCs issued in the name of t he Corporation , has asserted with emphasis that the demolition of the portion of his building as directed by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2007 passed i n WP( C) No. 3395/07 has already been carried out which finds support amongst ot hers from the order dated 28.2.08 passed in WP( C) No.741/2008 . He has reitera ted his cavil that the building of the petitioners is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Building Bye laws framed thereunder and has co ntended that the instant proceeding is sought to be used as a shield against the proposed action of the Corporation against such transgression. 7. The Respondent No.7, in his affidavit , as the President of Maha nagar Unnayan Samity ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Samity’) has sou ght to introduce his organization tobe one committed to the motto of planned and sustainable development of Guwahati city presently reeling under the bane of unplanned and haphazard growth leading inter alia to insurmountable problems bearing on the civic life of its habitants. This, the answering respondent has a ttributed to illegal and forged building permissions in the name of Corporatio n and the Authority requiring appropriate remedial steps. He has alleged illeg al construction of the Respondent No.6 which falls in the vicinity of a declare d slum namely the Padumpukhuri area of Ujanbazar as one of such innumerable in stances which though, have led to incalculable loss of revenue for the Corpor ation, it has remained a mute spectator inspite of repeated complaints being mad e to it by several public spirited persons and organizations. Rampant corrupti on with the indulgence and approval of unscrupulous officials of the Corporation has been asseverated which according to this respondent, needs tobe weeded out at the earliest in public interest. 8. The Respondent No.4, the Commissioner of the Corporation in his affidavit while generally abiding by the pleadings of the respondent No.2, ha s admitted that fresh constructions have been made by the Respondent No.6 a s revealed in course of the spot verification on 7.12.2009 for which, accordin g to this respondent, appropriate action is being contemplated in law. 9. The petitioners while generally reiterating their averments in the instant writ petition, have maintained in their reply affidavit that the Re spondent No.6 did not inspite of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2007 pass ed in WP( C) No.3385/2007 comply therewith and have also annexed photographs of his structures to reinforce the accusations. 10. The petitioner in person, Mr Sarma for Respondent N.7 and the l earned counsels for the other respondents have stood by their pleaded stands in course of the arguments . 11. Ms Sharma has urged that the impugned notice besides being unwa rranted is also without any authority of law, the same having been issued witho ut the approval of the Standing Committee of the Corporation. She has insisted t hat not only the same ought to be annulled an appropriate direction should also be issued to inquire into the clandestine activities relating to the issuanc e of NOCs in the name of the Corporation and the Authority with the knowledge and active support of some of the officials of these statutory bodies. 12. Mr Sarma representing the Respondent No.7 in reiteration of its pleaded averments , has submitted that the geo-satellite survey contemplated by the Corporation to examine amongst others the legality or otherwise of the NOC s and the proposed constructions is inadequate because of the inherent limit ation of the process and that it is indispensible that a manual operation be u ndertaken to unearth the unauthorized constructions both existing and in the m aking. 13. Mr Saikia by drawing the attention of this Court to Section 425 (2) of the Act, has urged that as at the relevant time, the Corporation stood s uperseded, the administrator appointed by the State Government, on 27.5.08 a s empowered thereunder, issued the impugned notice under Section 379 thereof act ing on the complaint made by the Respondent No.6 that the petitioners have reso rted to illegal construction works. As the concerned authority was prima facie s atisfied on the said complaint and the documents annexed thereto, the notice per se cannot be denounced as lacking in authority , he urged. Mr Saikia was categ orical in contending that the purpose of the impugned notice is to verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegation made by the Respondent No.6 and by no means is an attempt to reassess the petitioners’ building. He submitted tha t in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for investigation into the issuance of forged NOCs by the Corporation and the Authority in general ou ght not to be entertained as the instant petition is not in the form of a Publ ic Interest Litigation. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 has endorse d the above. 14. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of their pleadings, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the imp ugned notice. 15. Sections 156, 158, 159 of the Act relied upon by the petitioner in person which require the approval of the Standing Committee to cause prepar ation of the assessment list of all lands and buildings in the city and for ame ndment thereof are obviously contemplated at a point of time when the Corpora tion is not under supersession as a consequence whereof, the said body not onl y stands dissolved , the councilors as well vacate their office. Section 425(2) empowers the Government in such an eventuality to appoin t such person or persons to exercise and perform so far as may be ,the powers an d duties of the Corporation under the Act. There is no refutation of the plea that at the relevant time when the impugned notice was issued, the Corporation w as under supersession and the term of the Standing Committee had expired on 11. 1.09. The contention that the impugned notice had been issued for inspection a nd measurement of the petitioners’ building based on the allegation of unautho rized construction and not for reassessment thereof is prima facie borne out by the contents thereof. Section 382(1) of the Act permits the Commissioner or any municipal employee authorized and empowered by any provision of the Act to per form one or more of the acts as enumerated in Section 379. Section 382 of the A ct requires notice of the intention to make such entry. The impugned notice dat ed 8.4.09 therefore per se does not appear to be wanting in authority or in vio lation of any provision of the Act. The challenge thereto on this count therefo re fails. 16. As alluded hereinabove, though the petitioners herein were impleaded as Respondent Nos 7 and 8 in WP( C) No.3385/07 and the Division Bench of this C ourt had noticed the finding of the Corporation that the building of the Resp ondent No.6 under scrutiny had been raised on the strength of NOC which was determined to be a forged document, no direction was issued for demolition of the entire structure on the said basis. On the other hand, this Court being sati sfied that the building had been constructed with the knowledge of the concerne d authorities including those of the Corporation and that not only it has bee n assessed , but also has been allotted a Holding number and tax has been realiz ed, decided against declaring the same to be illegal and thus liable for demoli tion as a whole more particularly for non availability of approved plan or nec essary permission at the time of construction. This decision has remained unass ailed and therefore has attained finality. This Court in the teeth of the above determination considers it impermissible to reopen the issue of validity or oth erwise of the NOC on the basis of which the Respondent No.6 had raised his bui lding. 17. Though the Corporation and the Respondent No.6 have in unmistaka ble terms asserted that demolition of the portion of his( Respondent No.6) buil ding found to be in breach of the prescribed guidelines and norms had been ac hieved in compliance of the judgment and order dated 23.11.07 passed by this Co urt in WP( C) No.3359/07 ,it has been asserted otherwise by the petitioners. B e that as it may, in view of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 in his aff idavit filed on 8.12.09 that fresh constructions by the Respondent No.6 in th e building are visible and that appropriate action are being initiated therefo r , this Court at this stage is not inclined to issue further directions in thi s regard. The Corporation and the Authority however, would pursue this issue an d take appropriate action in accordance with law without fail. 18. As the issue with regard to the validity or otherwise of the NOC of the Respondent No.6 has been answered as above, in absence of any concrete instance of such forged NOC being issued in the name of the Corporation and t he Authority with the active support and patronage of the authorities thereof a s alleged, this Court is not inclined in the present proceeding to follow up th e same. Even otherwise having regard to the nature of the allegations made and the overall impact thereof on the civic life of Guwahati , it would be appropria te for the petitioners or the Respondent No.6 if they are so advised to initi ate a Public Interest Litigation before the appropriate forum. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings before this Court, such an exercise for the tim e being is not ventured into. 19. The challenge to the notice dated 8.4.2009 therefore is answe red in the negative. The petitioners would be at liberty to take up the issue p ertaining to issuance of forged NOCs by the Corporation or the Authority and o ther ancillary or incidental matters before the appropriate forum if deemed fit and proper. 20. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.