PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner initially contended the following, impeaching the acts of the respondents as available to him after exchange of affidavits and supplementary affidavits; (i) The sanction for the building of G+7 having been granted in September 30, 2015, it could not be stopped on the basis of an amendment of 2017, which was not notified in the Gazette in terms of section 1 sub- section (2) of the said amending Act; (ii) A construction, which had been sanctioned in 2015, should not be directed to be demolished by the said amending Act of 2017 in the said circumstance as mentioned in the above point; (iii) Section 1 of sub-section (2) of the amending Act requires the Governor to specify a date when the other provisions of the amending Act would apply and till the date of filing of the writ petition, no such notification had been disclosed but only a written order had been made directing the petitioner to stop construction and this was wholly without jurisdiction; (iv) The Gazette notification of September 04, 2019 showed that the Governor was exercising the power under section 243 read with section 244 of the said amending Act though the said notification also contained the words "the Governor is pleased hereby to declare, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, that the area, as specified in the Schedule below, shall be treated as 'Security zone' and prohibits the sanction of building plan exceeding fifteen and half metres of height from the ground level within five hundred metres radius of the 'Security zone' . (v) This would not be a notification within the meaning of section 1 sub-section (2) of the amending Act but would amount to an exercise of power, yet to be notified, which would be wholly without jurisdiction.
(2.) In answer to these points, the learned Advocate General Mr. Kishore Datta, learned senior advocate submitted very briefly that the contents of the Gazette notification dated September 20, 2017, which was published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary on September 21, 2017 was not considered by the petitioner when making these submissions. That Gazette notification shows clearly that His Excellency, the Governor was pleased to appoint September 20, 2017 as the date on which the remaining provisions of the amending Act {Howrah Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2017 } came into force.
(3.) Once such Gazette notification is considered, it would be clear that the provisions of Chapter-XXII of the amended Act came into force with effect from September 20, 2017. Therefore, on September 04, 2019, the exercise of power was perfectly within jurisdiction. The prohibition of a construction sanctioned even before the commencement of the Act, is submitted by the learned Advocate General to be within the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities, though Mr. Banerjee strenuously contended that the said provision was prospective and not retrospective. Learned Advocate General pointed to section 245 and stressed the power to direct a demolition of any construction by written order, as had been issued in the case of the writ petitioner.;