The High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by the Special Officer under section 400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 when an appeal against the order is pending before the Municipal Building Tribunal.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge dated 7th March, 2002 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed that the Corporation shall give at least two months' time to the private respondents to remove such unauthorised constructions and in default it shall take such steps to remove the same at the cost of the private respondents. It is further directed that if it is held that part sanction of the construction can be granted, the Corporation shall accordingly grant such part sanction and direct the private respondents to remove the remaining part of the erection made within a period of one month, in default, it shall be the obligation of the Corporation to remove the same at the cost of the private respondents. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

( 2 ) THE brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the private respondents though wanted to add an additional floor to their existing building, they made an application under Rule 3 (2) of Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Building) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and therein sought permission to effect repairs and construction. Such permission was granted. The private respondents started making construction. The writ petitioners (respondent No. 1 and 2 who are the owners of neighbouring premises) approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was summarily dismissed. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. The Division Bench held that having regard to the mandate contained in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the nature of construction that the private respondents intended to make could not be permitted under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules. The Appeal Court held that the construction already effected was without sanction. However, the Appeal Court remanded the matter back to the Corporation to determine whether the construction were within the parameter of the sanction applied for. On remand the matter was decided by the Special Officer (Building) (delegate of the Municipal Commissioner) by his order dated 15th September, 2000 and in that it was held that the application made by the applicant. Badal Dhara is not entitled to get any valid sanction from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in respect of his prayer for re-erection of the building in the premises under the existing provisions of Act and the Rules. The Special Officer held that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in MAT No. 2274 of 2000 dated 2nd July, 2000 in which the sanction given by the Corporation under Rule 3 (2) was declared nullity, the construction made on the basis of same was held to be unauthorised and directed the Corporation to take steps under section 400 of the Act after observing all formalities against such unauthorised construction in no time. Thereafter the matter was again taken up on 12th July, 2001 for demolition. Parties were heard and the Special Officer who was exercising delegated powers of the Municipal Commissioner held the construction to be unauthorised, though same arguments were repeated during the proceeding under section 400 which was negated by the Special Officer and the map was drawn in which he found a portion to be illegally constructed and he found that Rule 51 was violated as the height of the building is 7. 40 meters whereas the width of the means of access to it is 0. 888 meter. Similarly, he found that the building violates Rule 56 (1), according to which every building not exceeding 8 meters in height shall have a rear open space at ground along the entire width of the building forming an integral part of the site of a minimum width of 2 meters. Here only 0. 75 meter back space has been left instead of 2 meters. However, in view of the various decisions of this Court he observed the Munici