RAI VIMAL KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to unlock the premises, which is the private property of the petitioners and also for quashing of the notices, dated 29.12.95, as contained in Annexure -1 and 2 to this writ application, issued by the respondent -Patna Municipal Corporation whereby the petitioners have been directed to demolish the building in question, in terms of Section 247 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951, which is quoted hereinbelow : "247. Power far the prevention of danger from ruinous buildings. - (1) Whenever it appears to the Chief Executive Officer that any building, part of a building, wall, back or other structure of anything affixed thereto is dangerous to persons or property, the Chief Executive Officer may, with the approval of the Standing committee, (i) forthwith cause a proper hoard or fence to be put up for the protection of any person who may be endangered, and, (ii) by notice require the owner of occupier of the building, or the owner or occupier of the land to which such building, wall, back or other structure is affixed, within Seven days to demolish, secure or repair such building, wall, bank or other structure, or (iii) where it appears to the Chief Executive Officer that immediate action is necessary for the purpose of preventing immediate danger to any person or property, himself take such immediate action and recover the cost thereof from the owner or occupier of the building or land. (2) Any person who fails to comply with a requisition issued by the Chief Executive Officer under clause (ii) of sub -section (1) shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred rupees, and to a further fine not exceeding twenty rupees for every day during which the default is continued after the expiration of eight days from the date of service on him of such requisition."

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. Mahto, issuance of the notice under Section 247. of the Act is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuchas, the notices issued earlier were subsequently withdrawn. According to Mr. Mahto the building in question, is not in a dilapidated condition and, as such, the question of demolition of the same does not arise at all.

(3.) IN this case, a counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Patna Municipal Corporation wherein the submission of Mr. Mahto is being denied and it is stated in paragraph 7 as follows : "7. That on submission of report of the Engineer of the Corporation, as required by provisions of Section 247 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, notice was issued to the owners of the holding in issue of plot no. 269, Sheet no. 18, Ward no. 210, informing them that their premises, a very old building in dilapidated conditions was dangerous for persons and property and, as such, notice was being issued under Section 247 (2)(3) to demolish the building within two days or else in public interest the respondent -Corporation shall get it demolished and recover the costs from them."