Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Relaxation is only possible in the manner indicated in the rules in granting such sanction. But the question that arises in this case is that where there has been no relaxation Qr in a case where the rule cannot be relaxed, in such a case, if a building or a portion thereof has been constructed or altered, what is the scope of the power of the Commissioner under Section 414 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951?

The provision under Section 414 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1951 relating to the demolition, alteration and stopping of unlawful work is also retained under Section 400 & 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The language engrafted under Section 414 of the earlier Act and Section 400 (1) of the subsequent Act vest a discretion on the Commissioner to make an order for demolition of the building or the execution of any work which are contrary to the Act or the Rules. It is no doubt true that a discretion is vested upon the Municipal Commissioner either to pass an order for demolition or not to pass an order for demolition but such discretion is to be exercised if the other related provisions namely Rule 25 of the building rules are strictly adhere to. Once the Municipal Commissioner found that there has been a deviation from the sanctioned plan or the execution of the work is in violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, the Municipal Commissioner or the delegatee cannot allow such unauthorized and/or illegal construction to be retained in absence of any compliance under Rule 25 (2) of the Building Rules as Sub-Rule 3, which is declaratory in nature, contains a deeming provision that such deviation and/or erection or execution of work shall be deemed to be in contravention to the Act and the Rules. The Special Bench in case of Purusotam Lalji (supra) also held that the discretion is in no way be circumscribed as the Commissioner cannot act arbitrarily or on extraneous grounds.