Gauhati High Court
WRIT PETITION 3515/2008 on 8 October 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
WP(C) 3515/2008BEFOREHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA
Amitava Roy, J
Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/applicants and Ms. M. Hazarika, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, Advocate for the Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter for short referred to as the GMDA/Authority).Briefly stated, the facts now relevant for the purpose of disposal of the proceedings in hand are that the petitioners had applied for building permission before the GMDA/Authority for constructing a 3(three) storied building and on a scrutiny of all relevant aspects, No Objection Certificates (for short hereinafter referred to as the NOC) dated 08.10.2003 & 19.10.2004 were accorded by the GMDA/Authority in their favour. Seeking modifications to the building plans originally submitted and sanctioned, a request was made with the GMDA/Authority which was not acceded to. Instead, an order of demolition was issued by it alleging deviations from the plan, for which the No Objection Certificates had been granted. Aspate of litigation followed, details whereof at the stage is inessential. It is submitted at the Bar that meanwhile the petitioners have effected the demolitions to bring their construction in conformity with the building plan, for which the No Objection Certificates had been issued.
Whereas, Mr. Dutta, on instructions has submitted that consequential repairs to the building following the demolition works would be necessary to make the same habitable, Ms. Hazarika has submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to do so, whereafter, an application under the relevant Building Bye-laws of the GMDA/Authority seeking Occupancy Certificate may be made by the petitioners, so as to enable it (GMDA/Authority) to take an appropriate decision thereon following the necessary enquiries. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners has affirmatively responded to this.
In the above view of the matter, the present proceedings are closed permitting the petitioners to make necessary repairs to the existing framework of the Building following the removal of the deviations from the plan, on which the No Objection Certificates had been issued and to take appropriate steps to obtain Occupancy Certificate from the GMDA/Authority, thereafter. On their turn, the GMDA/Authority would take expeditious step to appropriately consider the application forOccupancy Certificate and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law and more particularly the Building Bye-laws in force. It would communicate its decision to the petitioners at the earliest thereafter on the completion of this exercise. No costs.