Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Shiromoni before the learned Single Judge, a case of collusion between the owner/developer of the property and KMC and the Heritage Commission, has been sought to be made out. It is not the case of Shiromoni that the new construction has been made without any sanctioned building plan or in deviation from the sanctioned building plan. Its case is that no sanction could have been granted by KMC. No approval also could be granted by the Heritage Commission. KMC and the Heritage Commission have favoured the owner/developer of the property in question obviously for illegal gratification.

46. The learned Single Judge upheld the locus standi of the writ petitioners relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipak Mukherjee, supra. That was a case where admittedly the person responsible had constructed two extra storeys beyond what was permitted by the sanctioned plan. The learned Single Judge in that case directed demolition of such unauthorised construction. The Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the Municipal Authorities to take action in accordance with the applicable law. It was the opinion of the Division Bench that the Court should not usurp the powers of the Municipal Authorities. The matter being carried to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order of the learned Single Judge was restored. The Hon'ble Court referred to several of its earlier decisions and expressed its concern as regards the increasing incidence of unauthorised construction in the city of Kolkata either without obtaining any prior sanction or in gross deviation from and violation of the sanctioned building plan. The Hon'ble Court observed that this was affecting the planned development of the city. However, there was no discussion about the locus standi of the writ petitioner in that case to maintain the writ application. We are of the view that the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision in Dipak Mukherjee's case, may not have been appropriate, for the purpose of upholding the locus standi of the writ petitioners to maintain the writ application.