KARTICK CHANDRA Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two Rules one taken out by Dr. Kartick Chandra Bose who is admittedly the owner of premises No. 45 Amherst Street, and the other taken out by seven other persons who claim to be occupiers of the same premises. The Rules are directed against an order, dated the 29th of June, 1951, passed by the Third Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta, whereby the learned Magistrate directed certain structures to be demolished.

(2.) It appears that on the 22nd of March, 1949, the Corporation received a letter from one D. K. Dutt who is the owner of premises Nos. 128 and 130 Keshab Sen Street, Calcutta, and by that letter the said D. K. Dutt complained that certain unauthorised structures had been put up at 45, Amherst Street with the result that the access of light and air to the adjacent premises owned by him had been materially affected. Prior to the receipt of this letter, however, the unauthorised structures had already received the attention of the inspecting staff of the Corporation and on the 21st of March, 1949, they had already made a report that certain unauthorised structures, some of which were still in the process of construction, had been detected. Thereupon on the same day, that is to say, on the 21st of March, 1949, a notice under Section 365 of the Calcutta Municipal Act was served on the owner. A notice under Section 363 of the said Act appears subsequently to have been served on the 13th of June, 1949 and the matter came up for discussion at a meeting of the Building Committee held on the 14th of June. Apparently, the matter was adjourned on the 14th of June and final orders by the Administrative Officer were passed on the 25th July. By that order the Administrative Officer directed four of the unauthorised structures to be demolished within three months and added that if that direction was carried out, the proceedings would be withdrawn. The direction was not carried out and consequently proceedings were instituted in the court of the Municipal Magistrate on the 11th of July, 1950.

(3.) I may pause here to point out that although the order of the, Administrative Officer was passed on the 25th of July, 1949 & only three months time was given to the owner to carry out the directions which would give him time up to the 25th of October, yet the Corporation did not find it possible to institute any proceeding till after nine further months, I have had occasion to comment before on the degree of expedition with which the Corporation transacts public business and this is but another instance of its normal speed.