The Tripura High Court has cautioned municipal authorities against pursuing demolition proceedings when a statutory appeal against the original demolition order is already pending before the competent appellate authority. Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud observed that officials must act fairly and should not take one-sided action that causes hardship to citizens.
Background
The case arose from a demolition order dated October 22, 2025, passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, Agartala Municipal Corporation. The order concerned the alleged unauthorised construction of the second floor of an existing building.
The petitioner, Smt. Alakananda Basu (Roy), challenged the demolition order by filing an appeal under Section 133(3) of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, along with a separate application seeking interim protection before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal, Agartala Municipal Corporation, on December 29, 2025. The appeal remained pending without a hearing.
While the appeal was pending, further steps towards demolition were initiated, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court noted that the matter was already sub judice before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal. The municipal corporation's counsel also informed the Court that he had advised the officers not to take coercive steps because the statutory appeal was pending, although he was unsure whether the officers were still pursuing demolition.
The Court expressed concern over the manner in which the municipal authorities were handling complaints during the pendency of the appeal.
"Since the municipal officers are not effectively working as required under the public law, they are drawing the citizens to the Court. It is not for the municipal officer to take one side and create hardship to the other."
The Court further observed that the authorities could have examined the records, provided an opportunity of hearing and then taken an appropriate decision regarding any construction alleged to be unauthorised.
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud held that citizens should not face hardship because of lapses on the part of municipal authorities, particularly when a statutory appeal is already pending. The Court advised the Commissioner of Agartala Municipal Corporation to sensitise and guide subordinate officers to act in accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of. Any pending miscellaneous application was also closed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Alakananda Basu (Roy) v. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors.
- Case Number: WP(C) No. 623 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud
- Decision Date: 21 August 2026
