Statutory Authorities Cannot Defeat Appellate Orders Through Delay: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court held that statutory authorities are duty-bound to implement binding appellate directions and cannot avoid such obligations through prolonged inaction. It remarked that unexplained administrative delay cannot defeat statutory orders or the rights flowing from them.

Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit remarked that:“The official respondents are duty bound to comply with the order dt.25.05.2018 of the Appellate Authority under Section 133(3) of the Act and it is permissible for this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus to them to implement it.”

The Court further stated that:“No valid reason is offered by the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 as to why the said technical inspection has not been done till date though 8(eight) years have elapsed since the passing of the said order in spite of the appellant repeatedly requesting for enforcement of the same.”

Background:

The appellant, a resident of Agartala, alleged that his neighbour, constructed a multi-storey building without obtaining necessary permissions from the Agartala Municipal Corporation. Despite multiple complaints since 2015, the municipal authorities failed to take effective action.

A notice was issued under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 and a demolition order in August, 2015 which directed demolition of unauthorized portions of the construction under Sections 133 and 135 (powers to order demolition of unlawful construction and stop illegal building activity) of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994.

However, even after the order, there was no inspection conducted for several years. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking implementation of the Appellate Authority's order and demolition of illegal construction.

The petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that the appellant has an effective alternative remedy before the Civil Court. After this, the appellant challenged the decision by filing a writ appeal before the Division Bench.

The Division Bench stated that the appellant had already availed the statutory remedy under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to say that the appellant had an efficacious remedy before the Civil Court.

Further the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is maintainable to ensure compliance with statutory duties and where authorities fail to act on binding directions, a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel performance.

The Court remarked that even if the dispute between the appellant and respondent is a civil dispute such disputes are permitted to be resolved by invoking Sections 133-135 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, and the remedy under the statute has been availed by the appellant.

Thus, the Court allowed the writ appeal.

Case Name: Shri Samir Ranjan V/s The Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case No.: WA No.52 of 2025 

Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate,

Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,

Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,

Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.