Reported by: Mrinal Banik

Agartala: The Tripura High Court has expressed displeasure over the Civil Engineering Department of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Agartala, declining to examine the structural condition of a building that is at the centre of a pending dispute.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit was hearing a writ appeal when the issue came up for consideration.

The Bench examined a communication dated August 27 from the Professor and Head of NIT Agartala’s Civil Engineering Department to the Chief Engineer of the PWD (R&B).

The department had informed the authorities that it could not take up the proposed structural assessment because of existing academic, research and administrative commitments of its faculty.

The department also pointed to ongoing preparations for postgraduate admissions and mid-semester examinations, citing the need to keep its faculty available for those activities.

The court took a critical view of the response. “We are totally disappointed by the stand taken by the Professor & Head, Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Agartala),” the Bench said.

It observed that an institution such as NIT has a public-oriented role and should be able to extend technical assistance to other institutions, including the judiciary, when such expertise is required.

The Bench then turned to the Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT), Narsinghar, Agartala, and asked it to nominate suitably qualified personnel from its Civil Engineering Department for inspection and testing of the disputed structure.

TIT has been given four weeks to submit a Structural Stability Evaluation Report, Field Test or Technical Audit Report. The order has also been directed to be communicated to the Principal of TIT. The case will next be taken up on October 7, 2026.

The proceedings originated from a petition filed by Habul Sarkar and another against the State of Tripura and other respondents.

The dispute involves alleged deviations in the construction of a building. In its April 22 order, the High Court had noted the petitioners’ claim that approval had been obtained for a residential building of B+G+4 floors, while a furniture shop-cum-godown was allegedly constructed on the ground floor.

The petitioners had also questioned the construction quality and alleged departures from the sanctioned building plan.

The court had earlier referred to Sections 130, 132 and 133 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, concerning inspection of buildings during construction and action against unauthorised construction.