SIDDHARTHA Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner Siddhartha Bhattacharjee claiming to be the owner of premises No. 543, Rabindra Sarani, previously numbered as 242, Upper Chitpur Road within Shyampukur Police Station in Calcutta. The petitioner has challenged the validity of a notice dt. 26-6-1984 issued by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation under R.5(4) of Schedule XVII of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, inter alia, to the effect that premises No. 243, Rabindra Sarani would be demolished as it is a dangerous structure. A copy of this notice is included in Annexure "A" to the petition.

(2.) Mr. S. K. Roy Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to paras 7 and 9 of the petition and submits that an employee of the Lakshmi Flour Mills of 542 Rabindra Sarani has caused and manipulated the demolition order with oblique motives. Both these paragraphs have been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the deponent. I fail to understand how such sweeping allegations made, inter alia, against the Corporation Authorities can be true to the knowledge of the deponent. On this ground alone this petition is entitled to be rejected in limine.

(3.) It has been pointed out to me by Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the Corporation Authorities that as far back as on 7-7-1977 the Deputy City Architect instituted proceedings under Rr.5(1) and 5(2) of the aforesaid Schedule for demolition of the said premises on notice to the recorded owner and occupier. Thereafter objections were filed by one Probodh Kumar Dey as recorded owner of the said premises. Several dates were fixed in 1978 and 1979 for considering the objections raised by the recorded owner in accordance with the provision of S.561 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 but in spite of the adjournments neither the recorded owner nor his representative appeared at the hearing of the objections. Thereafter on receipt of a complaint on 14th June, 1984 from Lakshmi Flour Mills that a portion of the aforesaid building had already fallen, there was an inspection by the Deputy City Architect on 15th June, 1984. The Deputy City Architect on personal inspection being satisfied, issued the necessary order under R.5(4) and thereafter the Commissioner himself passed the impugned order and 2nd July, 1974 was fixed for demolition of the building. These statements of Mr. Banerjee have been made to the Court with reference to the records produced by the Corporation Authorities.