Tripura High Court Questions AMC's Use of Casual Worker for Key Enforcement Role, Calls for Accountability in Building Regulation
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, July 16, 2026
In a significant observation that could have far-reaching implications for municipal governance in Tripura, the Tripura High Court has criticised the Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) for entrusting crucial enforcement responsibilities relating to building regulation and construction monitoring to a casual worker instead of accountable regular employees.
The observation came in the High Court's order in W.P. (Crl.) No. 06 of 2026, Smt. Ratna Roy vs. The State of Tripura & Others, while dealing with allegations of illegal gratification, assault and police inaction connected to a construction-related dispute.
During the hearing, the Commissioner of the Agartala Municipal Corporation informed the Court that Rabindranath Ghosh, one of the accused in the 2 lakh bribe case, was not a regular or permanent employee of the Corporation. Instead, he was engaged only as a casual worker and had been entrusted with the duties of Task Force Staff (In-Charge, East Zone) responsible for supervising construction activities. The Corporation further informed the Court that following his arrest and continued judicial custody, his casual engagement had been terminated.
Expressing serious concern, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit observed that important statutory responsibilities involving enforcement of municipal laws should not be entrusted to temporary or casual workers.
The Court noted that officials responsible for monitoring construction activities exercise significant regulatory powers under the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, including ensuring compliance with approved building plans and municipal regulations. Such powers, the Bench observed, must be exercised only by regular employees who can be held legally and administratively accountable for their actions.
The High Court specifically remarked that it did not appreciate the engagement of casual workers for performing important enforcement functions, observing that such duties should be entrusted to permanent officials who are answerable under the service rules and disciplinary framework of the government.
The Court further emphasised that public authorities are expected to function strictly in accordance with law and maintain transparency, accountability and fairness while exercising statutory powers. It observed that assigning sensitive enforcement responsibilities to personnel without regular service accountability raises serious concerns about administrative oversight and public confidence.
The Bench also observed that both the Police Department and the Agartala Municipal Corporation are expected to discharge their duties strictly in accordance with law so that illegal activities or administrative inaction of the nature found in the present case do not recur in future.
The High Court's observations come in the backdrop of a wider case involving allegations that Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath, a Special Police Officer, demanded Rs. 2 lakh from the petitioners son to allow construction work to continue. The Court found that the investigation initially suffered from serious lapses, including delayed registration of an FIR, prompting it to transfer the case to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under judicial monitoring.
By questioning the practice of assigning key enforcement responsibilities to casual workers, the High Court has highlighted the need for greater institutional accountability within municipal bodies. The observations are expected to prompt renewed scrutiny of staffing practices and enforcement mechanisms within the Agartala Municipal Corporation and other urban local bodies across the State.
Notably, the above report is based on observations recorded by the Tripura High Court in its order dated July 2, 2026. These observations form part of ongoing judicial proceedings, and the underlying criminal case remains under investigation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, while hearing W.P. (Crl.) No. 06 of 2026, Smt. Ratna Roy vs. the State of Tripura & Others, also observed that the investigation carried out before the Court's intervention was unsatisfactory and directed that the probe continue through a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under judicial monitoring.
The case arose from allegations by Ratna Roy, who claimed that Rabindranath Ghosh, functioning as Task Force Staff associated with the Agartala Municipal Corporation, along with Joy Debnath, a Special Police Officer (SPO), demanded Rs. 2 lakh from her son Saikat Saha for allowing construction work to continue. Following the alleged refusal to pay the bribe, Saikat Saha was allegedly assaulted, taken to East Agartala Police Station and assaulted again inside the police station in the presence of police personnel.
The petitioner alleged that despite filing a written complaint on April 6, 2026, East Agartala Police neither registered an FIR nor initiated any investigation. She later approached the Superintendent of Police, the Director General of Police and finally the High Court seeking justice.
During the proceedings, the High Court found that the complaint clearly disclosed cognizable offences and immediately directed preservation of CCTV footage from East Agartala Police Station covering April 4 to April 6, 2026, to safeguard crucial evidence.
The State Government's own preliminary inquiry, conducted by Woman Sub-Inspector Nirupa Dey, concluded that medical records prima facie supported allegations that Saikat Saha had sustained injuries consistent with physical assault. The inquiry also found that cognizable offences appeared to have been committed by Rabindranath Ghosh. Despite these findings, no FIR was registered until after the High Court intervened. FIR EAG No. 46 was ultimately registered only on May 7, 2026, more than a month after the alleged incident.
Questioning the delay, the High Court observed that police authorities remained inactive between April 16 and May 7 despite their own inquiry pointing towards commission of cognizable offences. The Bench also noted that the FIR initially omitted allegations relating to the alleged demand of Rs. 2 lakh as illegal gratification.
The Court further pointed out inconsistencies in the medical evidence placed before it. While the preliminary inquiry referred to injuries caused by physical assault, another medical report submitted by the State recorded only alcohol consumption without mentioning assault-related injuries. The Bench also expressed concern that the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar appeared to have been violated in relation to the arrest of Saikat Saha.
The High Court criticised the inaction of police personnel who were present inside East Agartala Police Station during the alleged assault and expressed dissatisfaction that accused SPO Joy Debnath had initially been transferred rather than subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
Observing that statements made in the State Government's initial counter affidavit appeared to prejudge issues still under investigation, the Court concluded that an impartial investigation by the same authorities would be difficult. It therefore transferred investigation of both FIR EAG No. 38 and FIR EAG No. 46 to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police with officers from the Tripura Police Crime Branch under the supervision of an Inspector General of Police. The Court also directed that no police officer from West Tripura district should participate in the investigation.
The SIT's confidential progress report later informed the High Court that CCTV footage from East Agartala Police Station allegedly showed Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath assaulting Saikat Saha inside the police station premises. Witnesses also corroborated allegations that Rabindranath Ghosh demanded Rs. 2 lakh in exchange for allowing construction work to continue and that the alleged assault followed Saikat Saha's refusal to pay.
Following these findings, the High Court directed the Government to explain what action had been initiated against police personnel who allegedly remained inactive during the incident. It also required the Home Secretary to withdraw earlier statements denying the allegations before completion of the investigation.
The Home Secretary subsequently informed the Court that several police officials had been served show-cause notices, suspended and subjected to departmental proceedings. Sub-Inspector Saikat Dey, who arrested Saikat Saha, was suspended after his explanation was found unsatisfactory. Joy Debnath was arrested and later dismissed from service. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against officials responsible for delaying registration of the FIR, while even the Under Secretary, Home Department, who had filed the earlier counter affidavit, was issued a show-cause notice.
The Commissioner of Agartala Municipal Corporation informed the Court that Rabindranath Ghosh was not a regular employee but only a casual worker entrusted with Task Force responsibilities and that his engagement had been terminated following his arrest.
In one of the most significant observations in the order, the High Court criticised the Agartala Municipal Corporation for assigning important enforcement responsibilities relating to regulation of building construction to a casual worker instead of accountable regular employees. The Bench observed that such sensitive statutory duties should be entrusted only to regular officials who can be held accountable for their actions under law.
Summarising the findings emerging from the SIT investigation, the High Court observed that there was prima facie evidence indicating:
alleged demand of illegal gratification by Rabindranath Ghosh from Saikat Saha;
alleged physical assault by Rabindranath Ghosh and Joy Debnath before and inside East Agartala Police Station after refusal to pay;
alleged illegal arrest of Saikat Saha by Sub-Inspector Saikat Dey, facilitating the assault instead of preventing it; and
alleged inaction of other police personnel present inside the police station during the assault.
The High Court further remarked that although corrective measures, including registration of FIRs, arrests, suspensions and departmental proceedings, were eventually initiated, such action should have been taken without requiring intervention by the High Court, since every citizen is entitled to prompt, fair and lawful action from public authorities.
Reaffirming constitutional principles, the Division Bench referred to several Supreme Court judgments emphasising that the police have a statutory and constitutional obligation to register FIRs promptly and investigate cognizable offences fairly, impartially and without delay. It also reiterated that constitutional courts are empowered to monitor investigations whenever police fail to discharge their legal duties or where an investigation appears biased or tainted.
Holding that the investigation conducted before May 14, 2026 was unsatisfactory, the High Court ordered that the SIT investigation would continue under judicial monitoring. The matter has been listed for August 24, 2026, when the Inspector General supervising the SIT will submit a fresh status report before the Court in a sealed cover.
more news...