Writ of mandamus lies against municipal authorities to enforce statutory appellate orders regarding illegal construction.

The Appellant, a neighbor of Respondent No. 4, alleged that the latter constructed a three-storied building and a septic tank illegally without municipal permission

On 13.08.2015, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) issued a demolition order under Sections 133 and 135 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994

Respondent No. 4 appealed this order, and on 25.05.2018, the Municipal Appellate Tribunal set aside the demolition order, remanding the matter for a technical inspection and a fresh order

Despite the Appellant’s numerous representations between 2019 and 2023, and internal memos by Respondent No. 3 in 2020 and 2022 constituting an inspection team, no physical inspection was conducted for eight years

The Appellant filed WP(C) No. 67 of 2025, which a Single Judge dismissed at the admission stage, citing the availability of an alternative remedy in Civil Court and a lack of locus standi

The Appellant moved the Division Bench in appeal.

1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued to compel statutory authorities to implement an order passed by a Municipal Appellate Tribunal

2. Whether a neighbor has the locus standi to challenge unauthorized construction and the subsequent inaction of municipal authorities

3. Whether the existence of a potential civil suit ousts the Writ jurisdiction when a specific statutory remedy under the Tripura Municipal Act has already been invoked

The Court applied the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, specifically Section 133 (power to stop building/demolition) and Section 133(3) regarding the finality of Appellate Tribunal orders

It relied on the principle that statutory authorities are duty-bound to exercise their powers to prevent illegal constructions, citing Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, M.I. Builders v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, and Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa

These precedents establish that municipal officials must be held accountable for connivance or negligence regarding unauthorized structures

The Court found that the Single Judge erred in relegating the Appellant to a Civil Court, as the Appellant had already successfully invoked the specialized statutory machinery under Sections 130 and 133 of the Act

The Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal's order for a technical inspection dated 25.05.2018 had attained finality, as Respondent No. 4 never challenged it

The bench observed that the eight-year delay by the Agartala Municipal Corporation was inexcusable and suggested either collusion with the private respondent or gross negligence

Regarding locus standi, the Court held that the concept is liberal in writ jurisdiction; as a neighbor whose statutory complaints were previously upheld, the Appellant’s legal rights were clearly engaged

The Court further determined that technical evidence is best evaluated by the constituted technical team rather than a Civil Court

It issued a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to implement the Tribunal’s order dated 25.05.2018 by conducting a technical inspection and passing a fresh order within one month

The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Agartala Municipal Corporation

Crucially, it directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the officers holding the post of Respondent No. 3 since 2018 and to initiate disciplinary action for their inaction