- (1.) THAT is an application for stay of operation of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 16th july, 1993. By the said order the learned Trial Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellants writ-petitioners vacated the interim order of injunction granted on 11th october, 1991. The writ application is still pending.
(2.) IN this case against an order of demolition under Section 401 of the calcutta Municipal Corporation Act the appellants filed a writ application before the learned Trial Judge for setting aside and/or quashing the said order under Section 401 of the said Act on the ground that the appellants writ-petitioners had made construction at premises No. 3. Pretoria Street, calcutta strictly in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Calcutta municipal Corporation and as the said construction was made strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan the said notice of demolition on the face of it is malafide, wrongful and illegal On the strength of the sanctioned plan certain unauthorised constructions were made which were not disclosed in the writ petition. The learned Trial Judge by the order dated 26th April, 1993 considered the report of the Specil Officer appointed earlier. After hearing the learned Advocates for both the parties, gave a liberty to the appellants to make a representation in accordance with law before the Municipal Commissioner for regularisation of the illegal structures. Such representation was filed by the appellants before the Municipal commissioner for the purpose of regularisation of the same. On the basis of the said representation the Municipal Commissioner fixed 15th May, 1993 as a date for hearing of the said representation regarding unauthorised constructions made at 3, Pretoria Street, Calcutta. On that date the appellants' Advocate -on -Record asked for adjournment on the ground of inconvenience of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. On the basis of the said application for adjournment the matter was adjourned to 29th May, 1993. On that date none appeared on behalf of the appellants and instead one letter was received by the Municipal Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporation by which a prayer was made for further time. The Municipal Commissioner considered the said prayer for adjournment but could not grant any adjournment as the next date of hearing by the learned Trial Judge was fixed on 3rd June 1993 and on that date he had to submit a report. Accordingly it is stated that the Municipal Commissioner had no option to consider the letter. The Muni- cipal Commissioner considered the representation and it was found that the following irregularities were there : 1. Internal court-yard of area 21-15 x 12. 35 Mts per floor has been covered up in 1st to 4th floor level covering. 1306 M2 of extra floor space. 2. Basement has been extended towards last covering are of 50 x 26. 225 Mts. = 131. 125 M2.
(3.) TWO nos. of stair-case and lift machine room has been extended in the sixth storey in addition to fifty storey. " 3. The Municipal Commissioner also found that the said irregularities were gross in nature and there is no scope for regularisation of the same within the purview of the existing law. It is not in dispute that the excess floor area beyond the sanctioned plan was constructed to the extent of 1306. 01 Sqm. and on analysis it was found that the permissible FAR was 2. 24. But because of the unauthorised construction the FAR was increased to 3. 03. The Municipal Commissioner also found that, there was no commission or scope to regularise those unauthorised constructions under the purview of the Building Rules. Accordingly after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and giving reasons stated above the Muni-cipal commissioner rejected the said representation by the order dated 3rd june, 1993.;