Calcutta High Court
Jang Bahadur Yadav & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 2 June, 2016
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
ORDER SHEET
T 26 of 2016
WP of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
JANG BAHADUR YADAV & ORS.
Versus
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Date : 2nd June, 2016. (Vacation Bench) Appearance:
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv.
...for KMC.
The Court : The petitioners are owners of premises No.62/H/5, Keshav Chandra Sen Street, Kolkata - 700 009. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that originally a very old and dilapidated building stood on the said premises. However, with the consent of all the tenants of the said premises, the old building was demolished and a new building was built thereon. Such construction was completed in the year 2013. Thereafter, the old tenants again moved into the said building and since then have been residing there. The petitioners also reside in the said new building. 2
The petitioners received a notice to appear before the Deputy Chief Engineer (Building) on 28th July, 2015 for a hearing in respect of the aforesaid premises. It is submitted that the petitioners duly attended such hearing and answered all the queries of the Corporation authorities. Thereafter, there was an absolute silence on the part of the Corporation authorities. Suddenly, the petitioner no.1 received a notice purportedly under Sections 544 and 546 of the CMC Act, 1980, for demolition of the aforesaid premises on 7th June, 2016. No hearing was granted to the petitioners nor any opportunity given to explain as to why such order of demolition should not be passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for interim protection.
Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Corporation refers to the notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the CMC Act, 1980 and submits that there appears to be an order of demolition and in execution of such order the aforesaid notice has been issued. However, from the notice itself, no details of any demolition order appears. Mr. Ghosh fairly submits that he has just now been briefed in the matter and he will take appropriate instruction in the matter.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am prima facie satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to interim protection. Particulars of no demolition order have been mentioned in the impugned notice. However, it is the positive case of the petitioners that no hearing was given to them prior to passing of the demolition order, if any.
The balance of convenience also is in favour of an interim order being passed to protect the immediate interest of the petitioners. 3
Accordingly, there shall be a stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 21st May, 2016 appearing at page 22 of the writ petition, till three weeks after the summer vacation.
Let this matter be listed before the regular Bench on 15th June, 2016. All parties are to act on a signed copy of this order to be supplied to them on the usual undertakings.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) dg2/sp2.