DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners assail a notice dated July 18, 2018 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the first three petitioners are owners of the property. The fourth and the fifth petitioners are tenants at the property concerned. He draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated February 17, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 1083 of 2014 (Sandip Pyne v. Kolkata Municipality Corporation and Ors.) . The order passed by the Appeal Court dated April 8, 2015 in G.A. No. 796 of 2015, APOT No. 94 of 2015, W.P. No. 1083 of 2014 (Sri Naresh Bajaj and Ors. v. Sandip Pyne) and an Order dated June 8, 2018 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 53 of 2018 (Dilip Kumar Boral v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.) . He submits that, the Corporation has not initiated any proceedings under Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The Corporation has not served the Order dated July 13, 2018 as noted in the impugned writing dated July 18, 2018. He relies upon All India Reporter 2007 Supreme Court page 38 (Muni Suvrat Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh v. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad and Ors. ). He submits that, the petitioners are entitled to a notice of the hearing and that, the proposed demolition not being in accordance with law, should not be undertaken by the Corporation authorities.
(3.) Corporation authorities are represented.;