J.K. Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition dated August 7, 2007 is aggrieved by the decision of the Borough Committee of Borough -5 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation dated January 12, 2005( at p.40) communicated by one Abha Mukherjee, to the fifth respondent, Baby Ghosh, one of the persons responsible for erection of the unauthorised constructions. The decision written in Bengali says that after a detailed discussion in a meeting the borough committee decided (i) that the person responsible for erection of the unauthorised constructions should submit an affidavit from a first class judge that the person would not erect unauthorized constructions in future and would, at own expense, demolish the unauthorised constructions, if any, erected in future; (ii) that the decision to fine the person would be taken thereafter; and (iii) that on failure to deposit the fine within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter for the purpose, an order would be issued for demolition of the unauthorised constructions.
(2.) The petitioner lodged complaint that the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents were responsible for erection of the unauthorised constructions. Then alleging inaction on the part of the corporation, he moved this Court by filing a writ petition that was disposed of directing the authority of the corporation to give appropriate decision dealing with the allegations. Alleging non -compliance with the order, the petitioner filed a contempt application. In the contempt proceedings the corporation filed an affidavit producing therewith the impugned decision dated January 12, 2005 permitting the fifth respondent to retain the unauthorised constructions on payment of fine and submission of an affidavit giving undertaking that she would not erect any other unauthorised construction in future. Questioning the decision the petitioner took out this writ petition. The corporation and the private respondents have entered appearance and they have filed their respective oppositions to which replies have been filed by the petitioner.
(3.) Mr Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner, assails the decision saying that the borough committee had no jurisdiction to give the decision; that the unauthorised constructions could not be legalized; and that the decision is unreasoned and vitiated by total non -application of mind and extraneous considerations. Ms. Mukherjee, counsel for the corporation, submits that materials forming part of the records supplied to her would show that the petitioner cannot be considered a person aggrieved by the unauthorised constructions; that the commissioner, competent to give decision in the proceedings initiated on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, delegated his statutory power to the borough committee that has given the decision, and hence it cannot be said that the decision is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction; and that the provisions of Sec. 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 empowered the commissioner to legalize the unauthorised constructions. Ms. Sengupta, counsel for the private respondents, has adopted Ms. Mukherjee's submissions, and has made submissions in justification of the decision.;