High Court Of Calcutta
K. M. Yusuf
MAULA BUX - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O. 17711 Of 1988
Decided On : 01/19/1990
Section 400(8) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and particularly violative of articles 14, 21 and 300a of the Constitution. It is also violative of sections 29 and 33 of the said Act.
Fact of the Case:
Numerous writ applications challenging the constitutional validity of section 400(8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which empowers the Mayor-in-Council to order demolition of unauthorized constructions forthwith without any notice, were taken up for analogous hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned provision is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice as it allows for the demolition of unauthorized constructions without providing any opportunity of hearing to the affected person. It also lacks any intelligible differentia between the two groups of persons committing the same act, one being processed under sections 400(1) to (3) and the other under section 400(8). Furthermore, the provision is inconsistent with other provisions of the Act that provide for a notice and an opportunity of hearing before demolition.
Issues: 1. Whether sub-section (8) of section 400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and particularly violative of articles 14, 21 and 300a of the Constitution? 2. Whether section 400 (8) of the Act is violative of sections 29 and 33 of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of natural justice requires that no person should be condemned unheard. This principle is violated by section 400(8), which allows for the demolition of unauthorized constructions without providing any opportunity of hearing to the affected person. 2. The provision is arbitrary and unreasonable as it lacks any intelligible differentia between the two groups of persons committing the same act, one being processed under sections 400(1) to (3) and the other under section 400(8). 3. The provision is inconsistent with other provisions of the Act that provide for a notice and an opportunity of hearing before demolition.
Final Decision: The Court held that section 400(8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and particularly violative of articles 14, 21 and 300a of the Constitution. It is also violative of sections 29 and 33 of the said Act. Consequently, all the writ petitions were allowed.
( 1 ) THIS bunch of 21 writ applications is taken up for hearing analogously as they deal with two important questions : whether sub-section (8) of section 400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and particularly violative of articles 14, 21 and 300a of the Constitution ? And whether section 400 (8) of the Act is violative of sections 29 and 33 of the said Act?
( 2 ) MR. Bankim Dutt, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, has advanced strenous arguments to bring home his contention that section 400 (8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is ultra vires of Constitution as well as of certain sections of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. He took the Court through various sections of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 beginning with section 2 (5) which defines "building". The building was defined in section 3 (7) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and according to the submission of Mr. Dutt the definition of building is substantially the same as in section 5 (6) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. Section 2 (32) of the C. M. C. Act, 1980 defines "a dwelling house" as a masonry building constructed, used or adopted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation. A similar definition of dwelling house was given in section 5 (28) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. The Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 did not define dwelling house but in section 2 (23) of the said Act domestic house includes a dwelling house.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER Mr. Dutt passed on to Chapter II of the C. M. C. Act, 1980 wherein he pointed out to section 3 of the Act which 1ays down different Municipal authorities, i. e. (a) the Corporation; (b) the Mayor-in-Council ; and (c) the Mayor; and then to section 4 which provides for the establishment of a Corporation charged with the Municipal Government of Calcutta. Section 5 of the said Act lays down the Constitution of the Corporation and section 8 lays down the Constitution of the Mayor-in-Council and the Inner of transactions of business therein. Then on to Chapter IV of the Act wherein section 29 lays down the functions of the Corporation with a special reference to clause (k) which includes the control of building operations and securing or removal of dangerous buildings and places. According to Mr. Dutt section 33 of the said Act lays down the executive power of the Corporation to be exercised by Mayor-in-Council and such powers are limited to the executive powers of the Corporation which should be exercised subject to the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and Regulations thereunder. To emphasis on the word 'executive' he referred to Articles 50 and 166 of the Constitution as well as Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (1950) and Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary. He submitted that the authority concerned is given a right to determine question affecting the rights of the parties, the function is judicial in the case of Judiciary and quasi-judicial in the case of Administrative authority. He further referred section 39 which defines power and function of the Municipal Commissioner and its sub-section (b) gives power to the Commissioner to assign the duties and to supervise and control acts and proceedings, of all officers and employees of the Corporation, subject to the supervision and control of the Mayor. Section 48 of the Act provides for delegation of powers by the Corporation to the Mayor-in-Council and delegation of the power of the Mayor-in-Council to the Mayor or the Commissioner.
( 4 ) MR. Dutt then dealt with the main Chapter XXII which deals with building and then right to section 382 of the Act of 1980 which provides for prohibition of building without sanction. According to this section the previous sanction of the Municipal Commissioner is necessary to erect or commence to erect any building or execute any work of the nature specified in section 390 and previous sanct
C.V.Subrahmanyam Sastry and Anr. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State of A.P.
Ajoy Kr. Ghosh v. Corporation of Calcutta and Ors.
Nani Gopal Biswas v. Municipality of Howrah
Siddhartha Bhattacharjee v. Municipa1 Corporation of Calcutta and Ors.
Ramkrishna Dalmia and Ors. v. Justice S. R. Tendolkar and Ors.
Lord Krishna Sugar Mill Ltd. and Ors. v. The Union of India and Anr.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Ors.
State of Maharastra v. Chandravhan
Francis Koralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India
Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
Ameerunissa Begum and Ors. v. Mehboob Begum and Ors.
Corporation of Calcutta and Anr. v. Satdeo Sarma
Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrep and Ors. v. Durga Nath Sarma
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement New Delhi
Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel
Ogla Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
Nageswar Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport
Anglo American Direct Trading Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen
Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A.V.Viswanath Sastry
Shree Meenakashi Mills Ltd v A V Viswanath Sastry
Ramprasad Narayan Sahi v. State of Bihar
Charahjit Lall v. Union of India
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.