Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs Kolkata Municipal on 28 July, 2010
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
.2010
W.P. 13815 (W) of 2010
In re: Dipak Kumar Mukherjee ... Petitioner
Vs.
Kolkata Municipal
Corporation & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sudipto Moitra Mr. Tapan Coomar De Mr. Debsoumya De ... for the petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Ms. Sima Chakrahborty ... for K.M.C. Mrs. Ava Roy Mr. K.N. Nobi ... for the State Mr. Shyamal Ganguly ... for respondent no.8 Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 23rd July, 2010 Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the respondent no.8, has produced the sanctioned plan.
It appears from the submissions that the construction has been raised up to ground plus fourth floor which is beyond the sanctioned plan. It is evident from the photo-copies of the records that it was resolved on 14th January, 2010 in the M.I.C. meeting of the Corporation that as the person responsible continued with the unauthorized construction which might lead to an accident, appropriate action towards demolition of the unauthorized construction should be taken forthwith under section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act with the help of the local administration.
Since, admittedly, unauthorized construction has been raised, that is, construction has been carried out beyond the sanctioned plan, I direct the Director General (Buildings-II), Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department, Borough-IX, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively, to demolish the unauthorized structure, as resolved, within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. During such demolition, if need be, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are at liberty to seek assistance of the Officer-in-Charge, Watgunge police station, Kolkata, the respondent no.6, and in 2 that event the respondent no.6 shall render all assistance in implementing the order of this Court.
Let the sanctioned plan be returned to Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate for the respondent no.8.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Learned advocates for the appearing parties are permitted to take down the gist of this order for communication and the respondents including the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 shall act on the basis of such communication.
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
( Soumitra Pal, J.)