Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) Two writ petitions are taken up for consideration analogously as they relate to the same order passed by the Special Officer (Building) exercising jurisdiction under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
(2.) W.P. No. 25668 (W) of 2014 is a writ petition seeking implementation of the Order dated January 11, 2014 passed by the Special Officer (Building). For the sake of convenience, such writ petition is referred to as the first writ petition and the petitioner as the first writ petitioner. W.P. No. 29273 (W) of 2014 is a writ petition which assails the Order dated January 11, 2014. Such writ petition, again for the sake of convenience is referred to as the second writ petition and the petitioner as the second writ petitioner.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the first writ petition submits that, since, the Order dated January 11, 2014 is appealable and no appeal having been filed by any of the parties and since such order remains unimplemented, the Court should direct implementation of such order expeditiously. Learned Advocate appearing for the second writ petitioner submits that, the Order dated January 11, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. Although, the impugned order is appealable, nonetheless, since such order stands vitiated by principles of natural justice, the Writ Court should intervene. He submits that, the impugned order considers documents, which such documents were not made over to the second writ petitioner, despite the second writ petitioner making a request for such documents, in writing. In support of such contentions, he relies upon a supplementary affidavit filed in the second writ petition. He submits that, by a writing dated December 31, 2013, his client had requested for supply of the Demolition Sketch Plan and the precis relied upon by the department. Despite receipt of such letter, the authorities did not supply, copies of the documents requested to the second writ petitioner. He refers to the impugned order and submits that, Demolition Sketch Plan and precis have been referred to in the impugned order. In particular, he draws the attention of the Court to the portion of the impugned order, which contains the directions for demolition. In support of the contention that, the authorities are obliged to follow the principles of natural justice in the proceedings before the Special Officer (Building), he relies upon (Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna & Ors., 1986 4 SCC 537) and (D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993 3 SCC 259) and a passage from De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Fifth Edition. He submits that, the existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not an appropriate answer when the adjudicating authority had acted in breach of principles of natural justice. Non-supply of copies of documents, on which the department had rested its case, vitiates the proceedings and the impugned order. The department not having made over the documents to the second writ petitioner, the impugned order stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. He relies upon (Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2008 16 SCC 276) in support of his contentions.;