- (1.) The petitioner was granted permission to carry on the works with regard to sub-clauses (c), (d), (g), (i) and (j) of Cl. (2), sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 and repairing the wooden beams where necessary. On 24th January, 2000 a notice under S. 401 of the Corporation Act, 1980 was issued to the petitioner to stop all construction including addition and alteration. This has since been challenged.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the meantime his client has completed the work as permitted without deviation from the sanctioned plan in terms of the clauses as contained in Annexure 'A' to the petition, being dated 12th January, 2000. Still the notice under S. 401 has been issued.
(3.) . Mr. L. C. Behani, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Mihir Kundu on the contrary contends that there was a report that the petitioner had carried on certain construction works which are beyond the scope of sub-rule (2) of R. 3 of the Calcutta Municipal Buildings Rules, 1990. Therefore, the notice was issued. According to him the writ petition is premature inasmuch as the petitioner has an opportunity to show cause that no illegal construction or no unauthorised construction is being carried out.;