MADHULATA KANKANI Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 26. 4. 2007 passed by the Special officer (Building) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the corporation) in Demolition Case No. 12-D/06-07, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present petition. By the said order, the Special Officer has directed the petitioner to demolish the impugned unauthorised constructions at her own cost and risk within 15 days from date of communication thereof, failing which the Corporation would be entitled to demolish the same at her risk and cost.

(2.) MR. Chakraborty and Mr. Das Adhikari, learned Counsel for the corporation and the private respondents respectively, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. They contended that section 415 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, provides a forum for appeal against any order passed under section 400 thereof and, therefore, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the Building Tribunal. It has also been submitted by them that the exception (s) which would justify interference despite availability of an alternative remedy being non-existent in the present case, the Writ Court may not entertain the present petition. They further contended that having regard to the plea raised by the petitioner before the Special Officer (Building) to the effect that the alleged unauthorised constructions were in existence at the time she was inducted as a tenant by the private respondents (landlords) in the premises in question and denial of such plea by the landlords before the Special officer, disputed questions of fact have surfaced which cannot be effectively decided by the Writ Court and, therefore, the Building Tribunal constituted under section 415 of the Act consisting of a member of the West Bengal Higher judicial Service, would be the appropriate forum to decide such dispute and grant complete relief to the petitioner, provided a case for interference is made out by her.

(3.) IN support of their submissions, learned Counsel have relied on the following decisions: