HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No. 314 of 2025 Smt. Ranjita Bala Banik ………Petitioner(s) Versus The Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors. ……..Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G K Nama, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. I. Chakma, Advocate. HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD ORDER 16.06.2025 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. [2] This present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing the Municipal Authority to renew the petitioner’s License No.1/13/1263 and accordingly direct them. ii. Issue rule asking the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the action for issuance of Annexure-8 document should not be declared as illegal and accordingly declare it. iii. After hearing the parties make the rule in terms of SL NO. (i) to (ii) above absolute. [3] It is seen from the record that the petitioner herein has challenged an order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Central Zone, Agartala Municipal Corporation under which the Municipal Commissioner of Agartala Municipal Corporation directed the petitioner herein to appear before the learned Civil Court for appropriate remedy. [4] It is also seen that there is some civil dispute filed by the petitioner as plaintiff is also pending before the concerned Court and this Court is of the opinion that parallel proceedings cannot be initiated in respect of the subject property. [5] However, insofar as the issue of trade license is concerned, it is seen from the record that the petitioner herein has not made any application. Hence, going into the issue of trade license and granting any direction to the respondents does not arise at this juncture. [6] If so advised, petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies under the law before competent Civil Court or before the concerned statutory authority. [7] In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with the above observation. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed. JUDGE Paritosh SABYA SACHI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH Date: 2025.06.18 16:15:36 +05'30'