PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated August 29, 2007 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in Appeal No.101 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application dated September 19, 2006 for stay of the order of demolition. The short question involved in the matter is whether the learned Municipal Building Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for stay while admitting the appeal against the order of demolition dated July 5, 2006 for violation of the building Rules. As per findings of the learned Municipal Building Tribunal, 2 the petitioner is a habitual offender of the building Rules. The property involved in the matter of construction is a thika property. Previously, he made unauthorized construction and it was directed that the unauthorized construction should be regularized, provided the petitioner obtains 'No Objection Certificate ' (NOC) from the concerned Thika Controller and that he would not make any further unauthorized construction. The contention of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is that in spite of swearing an affidavit, the petitioner again raised unauthorized construction and he did not file any NOC as directed earlier. The petitioner also violated the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Rules by making the unauthorized construction in spite of swearing an affidavit not to do so.
(2.) UNDER the circumstances, when an appeal was filed against the order of demolition and stay was sought for, the learned Municipal Building Tribunal did not grant the order of stay. As per observations of the Municipal Building Tribunal, the petitioner is a habitual offender of the violation of the building Rules and he did not comply with the affidavit sworn by him. Nor did he obtain any NOC as directed but in spite of that, he had made the unauthorized construction. Under the circumstances, order of demolition was passed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that since appeal has been admitted, it should be disposed of first. 3 Otherwise, if the order of demolition is acted upon, the filing of the appeal would be infructuous. Since, the basic requirement for compliance relating to regularization of the earlier violation has not been fulfilled, the question that the filing of the appeal would be infructuous, if no stay is granted, becomes irrelevant. The question is whether the petitioner has come to court with clean hands. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that no lenient view should be taken up and that the learned Municipal Building Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned order thereby rejecting the prayer for stay. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order. The application is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.;