Kolkata, May 14 (ILNS): The Calcutta High Court has directed the concerned authorities to inspect the health and condition of the mobile tower installed on the roof of the building of the petitioner, a senior citizen.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri on May 12 dispsed of the petition and held that the petitioner has not raised any grievance with regard to the agreement in question. There is no dispute between the parties, which can be referred to the arbitration.
The petitioner said that she only wants an expert’s report regarding the health and condition of the mobile tower, fixed by a private respondent in 2008. The petitioner, a resident within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and a tax payer, can pray for such direction upon the authorities to protect her residential house, life and property of its inmates.
The Bench said: “Considering such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of, directing the concerned authorities to inspect the mobile tower set up on the roof of the premises in question within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and submit a report to the petitioner.”
The petition was filed by one Rama Paul. According to the petitioner by an agreement dated June 23, 2008, the private respondent was permitted to install a mobile tower on the roof of her building.
Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, Counsel for the petitioner, alleged that due to the failure on part of the private respondents from doing proper repairing work of the mobile tower, the condition of the tower becomes dangerous to human habitation, it may fall on the roof at any point of time, causing danger to human life and habitation of the said house, as well as the neighbouring area.
It was also alleged by the petitioner that she made an application before the concerned authorities for an inspection to consider the health of the said mobile tower, but the authorities did not inspect the premises in question till date.
Manas Kumar Kundu, Advocate for the state on the other hand, submitted that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the municipal corporation and private respondent at the time of agreement.
The dispute between the parties essentially related to non-payment of rent. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner can have proper remedy by filing a civil suit. Furthermore, the agreement in question has an arbitration clause and over dispute between the parties, the matter should be referred to the arbitration. ILNS/SHV/SS/RJ