Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The writ petition has been heard along with another matter in the Appellate Side, being C.O. No. 11814 W/89 (Anil Ratan Banerjee and 12 Ors. v/s. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors.). This writ petition has been filed by 10 individuals and 2 private ltd. companies, namely. Khaniva Housing, (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Happy Hope (India) Pvt. Ltd., both of 9/12, Lalbazar Street, Calcutta -1. The Petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the impugned notice dated November, 21, 1990, being Annex. 'A' to the writ petition issued by the Building Inspector, 'Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Bourough No. 13, being the Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition and for, consequential reliefs to restrain the Respondents to interfere with the lawful activities of the Petitioners to raise the building on the strength of the building plan obtained by the Petitioners in terms of the Bengal Municipal Act. In fact, the writ Petitioners have challenged the notice under Sec. 401 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act dated November 21, 1990, issued by the Respondent No. 4, namely, the Building Inspector. Bourough No. 13 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It is stated in detail that the Petitioners arc the owners of the property situated at 113/112 Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta, and they have purchased the said plots for the purpose of building up the flats for housing accommodation. It is further placed on record that the plan was submitted on August 24, 1987, before the Municipal Authorities, namely South Suburban Municipality, and there was no refusal to sanction the plan nor any explanation was called for and as a result thereof the plan was deemed to have been sanctioned as alleged. It is further placed on record that there was a civil suit in between the Petitioners and their vendor, and there was a delay in raising the construction. The Petitioners have mainly challenged the impugned notice dated November 21, 1990, on the ground that the impugned notice is highly vague and unlawful inasmuch as, it does not at all specifically mention about the nature of violation of the conditions of sanction it is asserted that in the absence of any specific mention about the violation, it is practically impossible for a man of ordinary prudence to appreciate what are the deviations or to lake remedial steps thereto and there is no specific mention about the violation of the conditions of sanction. It is claimed that before issuing the impugned notice, the Respondents Municipal authorities ought to have inspected the construction job undertaken by the Petitioners to see that the job carried on by the Petitioners are anything contrary to and inconsistent with the provision of law. Developing all these points the Petitioners have sought the relief as indicated above.
(2.) The writ petition is seriously contested by the Respondents the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities by filing a comprehensive. affidavit in opposition sworn by one Basudeb Roy, Disl., Building. Surveyor. It is placed on record that one Sri D.R.K. Karnani, the owner of the premises No. 113/112, Diamond. Harbour, Road, Calcutta applied on or about February 22, 1985, to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, South Suburban Unit, Behala, for erection of eight storeyed building (6 blocks) with underground basement and the said plan was sanctioned being No. 27050 dated April 22, 1985. The said sanction was ac corded under the provision of Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. It is further stated that under Sec. 319A of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, it is mandatory on the part of the owner of the building to give a written notice of commencement to erect the building within seven days to the Commissioner, specifying the date on which he proposes to commence the work, but in the instant case the recorded owner did not serve any notice in compliance with the aforesaid provision of the statute. Accordingly, there was no valid sanction after April 22, 1987. There was no prayer for renewal of the said plan by D.R.K. Karnani. Instead, he submitted a fresh plan for addition of another four stories, namely of 12 storeyed building on August 24, 1987, after expiry of two years. A fresh plan was received by the Engineer, Calcutta Municipal Corporation, for a 12 storeyed building on a plot of land of 3 bighas cottahs 9 sq. ft. The Municipal authorities found several irregularities in the said plan. Previously a writ petition was moved before M.N. Mullick, J. (as His lordship then was) and the said matter is pending in the Appellate Side being Co. 11814(W) of 1989. The other allegations of the writ Petitioners have been controverted. The subject matter as to the sanction of the building plan by way of deeming provision has been elaborated in the writ petition pending in the Appellate Side. In the present writ petition the main challenge is against the impugned notice under Sec. 401 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act.
(3.) In course of hearing it was submitted before this Court that the writ Petitioners have already constructed in deviation of the sanctioned building plan and the building has been raised with spurious materials and the building is likely to be crumbled down and steps are required to demolish the unauthorised building. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the writ Petitioners and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation authorities, this Court appointed the Head of the Department of Faculty of Engineering and Technology and of Civil Engineering of Jadavpur University and also a practising Advocate of this Court has Joint Special Officers to visit the site and to file reports as to the nature of the construction made by the Petitioners in view of the serious allegations that steps have been Taken to raise construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan and that there is likelihood of collapse of the building for not conforming with the technical details of raising the building without any valid sanctioned plan: Special Officers were directed to visit this site upon notice to the parties and cause inspection in terms of the Court's order.;