N.K. Batabyal, J. - (1.) According to the writ petitioner, respondent No. 2 (Smt. Shipra Dutta) purchased from Shri Shibnath Dhar on 30-9-88, a plot of land measuring about 2 cattahs 10 chhataks 35 sq.ft. at Mauza Kaliadah P. S. Dum Dum, North 24 pgs. in P. S. plots No. 4877 and 4878 under Khatian No. 734 of the said Mauza. The respondent No. 2 intended to raise on the land a three-storeyed building, one flat in each storey, and to sell the flat to intending purchasers on a price agreed upon between the parties. The writ petitioner on 28-8-92 entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 2 for the purchase of the entire ground floor portion of the proposed building for a consideration of Rupees One lakh. A copy of the agreement has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as letter-A. Subsequently, there was another agreement between the parties for construction of unfinished portion of the flat on the ground floor premises. A copy of that agreement has been annexed and marked with the letter-B. By a letter dated 20-7-93, the respondent No. 2 delivered to the writ petitioner possession of the flat. A xerox copy of the letter is annexed with the letter-C. The writ petitioner is in possession of the ground floor flat of the building since delivery of possession. The original sanctioned plan for the building was for a three storeyed building as per plan No. 1034 dated 30-4-90. A copy of plan which has been annexed to and marked with letter-D.
(2.) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that without his knowledge the respondent No. 2 has submitted a second plan for erection of another floor over the existing 2nd floor of the building. The writ petitioner at once made a representation to the Chairman of the respondent No. 1 pointing out that the existing construction was not such as to bear the load of another floor and the building was likely to collapse if any floor was added to the existing structure. A second letter was sent to the Chairman to look into the matter but to no effect. On 10-8-93, the writ petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 1 had sanctioned the plan No. 835 dated 12-6-93 allowing the respondent No. 2 to raise another floor over the existing three-storeyed building. He at once wrote to the Chairman protesting that such construction would violate the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Xerox copies of the letters being dated 29-3-93, 2-7-93 and 10-8-93, are annexed to the writ petition and marked as letter 'E' collectively. According to the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 has failed to discharge their statutory duty in sanctioning plan submitted by the respondent No. 2 by violating the provisions of the B. M. Act and the Building Rules thereunder. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 ought to have refused permission to the second plan by the respondent No. 2. As no action was taken by the respondent No. 1, therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court, after giving a notice demanding justice for the following reliefs:- (A) A writ of the mandamus commanding the - respondent No. 1 to revoke or/and to cancel the sanctioned plan No. 835 dated 11-6-93 for premises No. 455, Sahid Khudiram Bose Sarani, Calcutta-30; (B) a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to produce relevant papers before this Court for doing concernable justice and another reliefs.
(3.) In this case, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Municipality or on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Dr. D. Mazumdar, Id. advocate appearing on behalf of the municipality has submitted that no ah davit-in-opposition is required to be filed on behalf of his client as the writ petition is not maintainable in law. Mr................. Id. advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has also made similar submissions. After giving anxious hearing to the submissions made by the Id. advocates of both sides, it appears that the only question which has been raised by the respondents is whether the writ petitioner ha ; any locus standi to file the present application.;