ORDER

We find the conduct of the first respondent thoroughly dishonest.

2. The first respondent was required by the appellant to demolish a construction that he had put up. He challenged the order of demolition before the Building Tribunal constituted in this behalf under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The decision of the Tribunal having gone against him, he filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta and contended that the Tribunal which had heard and disposed of his appeal was improperly constituted in that it consisted of only two members. The writ petition was allowed and the Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal there against by special leave.

3. At the time the demolition order was passed, the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were in force. It provided for the constitution of a Building Tribunal under Section 391-B. It was to consist of a President and two assessors. It was empowered under Section 391-A read with Section 414-A to hear appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner, which included orders requiring demolition. Section 415 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which replaced the 1951 Act, originally provided for a