JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS - (1.) THE Court: The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated July 15, 2011 has two grievances: the Municipality has not taken steps for enforcing its decision dated June 6, 2011 (WP p.32); (ii) the decision dated June 6, 2011 was given without taking into consideration all the unauthorized constructions.
(2.) THE petitioner lodged a complaint that the private respondent was making unauthorized constructions at the premises in question. Taking cognizance of the complaint, the Municipality directed inspection of the premises. The inspection revealed certain unauthorized constructions. A show-cause notice was issued. Proceedings were initiated by the Board of Councillors. The private respondent gave undertaking to demolish the unauthorized constructions. A second inspection revealed that all the unauthorized constructions detected by the inspecting engineer of the Municipality had not been demolished. Direction was given for demolishing the remaining unauthorized constructions. A third inspection was ordered and finally the Board of Councillors gave the decision dated June 6, 2011 directing demolition of all the detected unauthorized constructions. In none of the three inspections conducted by the engineers of the Municipality the petitioner, on the basis of whose complaint the proceedings had been initiated, was involved. This has led to the grievance that the Municipality did not notice all the unauthorized constructions erected by the private respondent. In my opinion, the decision-making process was not a fair one. The decision was given on the basis of three reports of three inspections of the premises in question conducted behind the petitioner's back. The petitioner ought to have been involved in the inspections so that with the help of his engineers he could point out the unauthorized constructions. As to the allegation that all the unauthorized constructions detected by the inspecting engineers of the Municipality have not yet been demolished, counsel for the private respondent has submitted that the allegation is incorrect. He has said that the private respondent has already demolished all the unauthorized constructions the engineers inspecting the premises detected.
(3.) IT is for the Municipality to ascertain whether all the unauthorized constructions have been demolished. Needless to say that if any part of the unauthorized constructions is still in existence, then the Municipality has to implement the order directing demolition. On the facts and in the circumstances, I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the WP giving suitable directions. For these reasons, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. The Board of Councillors shall order fresh inspection of the premises involving the petitioner and the private respondent who will be free to take help of their own engineers. After inspection the Board shall decide whether there is any other unauthorized construction. If any part of the already detected unauthorized constructions is yet to be demolished, then the Municipality shall take steps for the purpose. Compliance within twelve weeks from the date this order is served on the Chairman of the Municipality. No costs. Certified xerox.;