Monoranjan Malick, J. - (1.) The writ petitioners challenge the validity of the purported notices dated January 14, 1986 issued by the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation for the purpose of re-hearing the demolition Case No. 11 /D/82-83. Briefly the facts are as follows :
(2.) The petitioners are the owners of 1, Sambhu Mullick Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The plans for construction of the said premises upto 3rd floor back and middle portion was duly sanctioned by the Corporation authorities on September 18, and November 26, 1980. Plans for the construction of the front portion upto 2nd floor were submitted on January 24, 1981 and a plan for construction upto 10th floor was submitted on March 12, 1981. As the sanction of the plans were wrongly withheld the petitioners moved before this Court a writ petition and T. K. Basu, J, directed the Corporation authorities to sanction the plans provided the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were complied with. After that order was passed the petitioners again moved the Corporation authorities for sanction of the said plans duly submitted. After the Corporation authorities remained silent the petitioners waited for a period of two months and then started the constructions and completed upto 8th floor. After the completion of the said construction work upto 8th floor as aforesaid the Corporation authorities initiated the demolition case bearing No. 11 -D/82-83. The said demolition case came up for hearing before the Special Officer (Building) Shri G. P. Ghosh in April 1984 and the hearing was concluded on or about September 11, 1984. As the petitioner did not receive the copy of the order of the Special Officer (Building he wrote the letter dated February 15,1985 to inform as to whether the same had been disposed of or not. The Special Officer (Building) informed him by the reply dated 23rd February 1985 that the said case had been disposed of by him on November 15, 1984 and he advised the petitioners to contact the City Architect regarding the service of the order. The petitioners then sent their representative to obtain the copy of the order and after several visits an uncertified copy of the order of the demolition case dated 15th November, 1984 was given to the representative. By the said order the Special Officer directed for demolition of the structure in the rear portion of the 9th floor of the premises and the remaining alleged unauthorised constructions at the said premises were allowed to be retained on payment of penalty to be assessed by the Building Department along with the outstanding guard costs. The copy of that order has been annexed annexure 'B'. However the Building Department did not assess the penalty I nor were the petitioners asked to pay the same.
(3.) But long after the passing of the above order dated November 15,1984 by the Special Officer (Building) the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 received two purported notices both dated January 14, 1956 from the respondent no. 3, that respondent no. 2 Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation would hear the said demolition case on January 17, 1986. Immediately on receiving the notices the petitioners intimated the respondents that the demolition case had already been disposed of and asked for inspection of that order. But the respondent no. 2 did not care to cancel and withdraw such notices and is determined to proceed in the matter.;