SHAMPA SARKAR,J. - (1.) Despite service none appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent no.4 is present.
(2.) By this application the petitioner has prayed for an order modifying and/or extending the period of two weeks which was fixed by this Court to enable the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5203(W) of 2015 to file an application under Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 before the Municipal Commissioner or his delegates for an adjudication on the application by an officer not below the rank of Director General (Building). The order was passed on January 4, 2019 and the petitioner was directed to approach before the Corporation within two weeks from that date. Last date for filing such application was January 17, 2019. The petitioner filed the application before the Corporation on February 5, 2019 that is after four weeks from the date of the order instead of two weeks as directed. After the application was filed on February 5, 2019, the Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued a notice dated July 12, 2019 intimating the petitioner that the hearing would take place by the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) on July 24, 2019. On July 24, 2019 the matter was heard by the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) in presence of the parties and thereafter the matter was heard again on July 30, 2019 and September 12, 2019. The respondent no.4 attended the hearing on all the days. On September 12, 2019, that is, on the last date of hearing the learned advocate representing the respondent no.4 raised a question about the delay in filing the application before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in violation of the order of this Court. Thereafter the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) adjourned the hearing and directed the petitioner to obtain leave from the Court for extension of time so that the proceeding could continue before the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue). Thereafter this application was filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: a) An order be passed directing the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) to accept the application filed by your applicant in terms of Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 on 5th February, 2019 pursuant to the order dated 4th January, 2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court; b) The Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) be directed to conclude the hearing and pass a reasoned order on the basis of the application filed by your applicant on 5th February, 2019; c) An order of modification of the order dated 4th January, 2019 be passed extending the time to file the application under Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 or in the alternative the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) be directed to accept the application of your petitioner dated 5.2.2019; d) Such further order or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case; The petitioner was granted leave to incorporate a prayer for extension and/or modification of the order dated January 4, 2019 by extending the time to file the application under Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. On the first date of hearing this Court was of the prima facie opinion that, as the Court had become functus officio, the matter could not be disposed of without hearing the parties and without affording an opportunity to the parties to file their affidavits. On September 25, 2019 accordingly, the direction for affidavits were issued and the Corporation was directed to produce the documents relating to the hearing. This matter was mentioned by the petitioner on notice to the Corporation as also the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4. The learned advocate for the respondent no.4 is present. The affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, reply thereto has also been filed. The Corporation has not appeared in the proceedings. The notice showing service and intimation of the earlier order upon the Corporation and thereafter the notice issued before mentioning the matter before this Court are all on record.
(3.) Mr. Bose, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the delayed petition was accepted by the Corporation. Hearing was held on a few days. Thereafter this point was raised by the respondent no.4 and the Special Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) adjourned the proceeding so that the time may be extended. He submits that the petitioner was under the impression that once the authority had accepted the application, the delay was automatically condoned.;