1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/169/2025 Smti. P. Beeyumma Vs. Port Blair Municipal Council and Others Mr. K. Vijay Kumar … for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondent Nos. 1-3 March 24, 2025 [AKB] Item No.4 1. Although, from the affidavit-of-service it is not clear whether the private respondents had been served, however, since it would transpire that the petitioner had sent the writ petition through speed post on 21st of March, 2025 and since, more than 24 hours have expired and also noting the nature of relief sought for, as submitted by Mr. Vijay Kumar learned advocate for the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for consideration. 2. Mr. Vijay Kumar at the very outset would submit that he only insists for consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 20th March, 2025 by the respondent no. 2 and it is based on such premise that the instant petition has been taken up for consideration. 3. The petitioner would complain that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the adjacent plot holders, had started construction of a building adjacent to the petitioner’s land in violation of the sanction building plan. 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned advocate representing petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the order 2 dated 3rd July, 2024 would submit that the Executive Engineer, Municipal Council had already issued the stay order No. 2500 dated 3rd July, 2024, by noting that the building is being constructed in contravention of the master plan for the Port Blair Planning Area. According to him, the aforesaid illegal portion had also been demolished. However, subsequently the private respondents have once again started the construction work. 5. In the facts noted above since, Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned advocate representing the petitioner only insist that the representation made by the petitioner on 20th March, 2025 may be considered by the respondent no. 2 and noting the submissions made by the learned advocate representing the Municipal Authorities, I proposed to dispose of the instant petition by passing the following order. 6. I direct the concerned respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation by giving an opportunity of hearing to the private respondents and the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA/169/2025 stands disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case and the respondents shall decide the representation of the petitioner being uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. 3 9. All parties to act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)