SHIRISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Subhash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the order/letter dated 19.4.2017 issued by the Additional City Magistrate-IV, Varanasi. By this order/letter, the City Magistrate has requested the Station House Officer, Varanasi to provide police force for carrying out demolition of premises S-9/92, Khajuri Pandeypur, Varanasi, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition, within seven days from the date of the said letter. It further appears that the City Magistrate has issued this letter on the basis of the order dated 16.4.2017 issued by the District Magistrate, Varanasi. In view thereof, on the last occasion, we had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce a copy of the order dated 16.4.2017 passed by the District Magistrate. She has placed an application dated 16.4.2017 made by the respondent No.7, who claims to be the landlady of the premises in question, on which the District Magistrate passed the order dated 16.4.2017, directing the City Magistrate to issue orders of demolition.

(3.) From a perusal of the application made by respondent No. 7, it is apparent that she made the application seeking demolition on the grounds as provided for in Sec. 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). We have perused Sec. 331 of the Act. From the scheme of this provision, it appears to us that the District Magistrate has absolutely no role to play. If an application is made by a landlord/landlady in respect of any structure, which, according to the landlord or the landlady, is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person, occupier to seek its demolition, the powers are vested in the Municipal Commissioner and even the Municipal Commissioner under this provision is expected to issue a notice to the owner or occupier of such structure before passing an order of demolition. None of the counsel for the respondents could place any material on record to show that such a procedure was followed by the Municipal Commissioner. Our attention was drawn to the notice dated 16.7.2016 issued by the Zonal Officer, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi under Sec. 331 (1)(2) of the said Act. We, however, were informed that the concerned authorities have not taken the notice to its logical conclusion till this date. We were also informed that they have not taken any further steps, after issuing such notice dated 16.7.2016. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation further submits that if the concerned authorities decide to proceed further in pursuance of the said notice, they shall follow the due procedure. His statement is recorded and accepted.