Tenants of an unauthorized construction do not have the locus standi to challenge a demolition order under Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, as the right to hearing is limited to those responsible for the construction.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who are the tenants of premises No. B/113/h/16/1, Bipin Behari Ganguly Street, Kolkata -700 012 filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their servants, agents or employees not to take any step or further steps affecting in any way or manner the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' respective holdings and structures in the said premises.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have made a complaint against the Municipal authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, as they are taking steps to demolish the building standing at the said premises without service of any notice regarding initiation of any demolition proceeding upon the petitioners.

( 3 ) THE legality of the order of demolition, has been challenged by the petitioners primarily on the ground of non-service of notice of hearing upon the petitioners. The petitioners allege that the Municipal authority has not adhered to the mandatory provision regarding service of notice upon the petitioners for showing cause, before passing an order of demolition. The first proviso to section 400 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act, 1980 gives a mandate to the Municipal authority to serve a notice to show cause even upon the occupier of the building before passing an order of demolition. The petitioners, thus, claim that the demolition order, cannot be sustained in law due to non-compliance of the mandatory provision of section 400 (1) of the said Act relating to service of notice to show cause upon the petitioners.

( 4 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Advocate, appearing for the Municipal authority, raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus of the petitioners to maintain this writ petition. Mr. Ghosh submitted that since the petitioners are neither the owners nor the occupiers nor the persons responsible for such unauthorised construction, they cannot claim any right of hearing in connection with the demolition proceeding. By referring to the explanation added to sub-section (1) of section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, Mr. Ghosh persons responsible for such unauthorised construction, they cannot claim any right of hearing in connection with the demolition proceeding. By referring to the explanation added to sub-section (l) of section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, Mr. Ghosh submitted that it is only the owner, occupier or any other person who is responsible for such unauthorised construction, gets an opportunity of hearing before passing of any order of demolition.

( 5 ) MR. Ghosh contended that since the petitioners neither claimed that they constructed the said building nor they claimed that the building was caused to have been constructed by any other person at their instance, they cannot claim any right of hearing in a proceeding for demolition under section 400 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation act, 1980.

( 6 ) BY relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Awatarv. Calcutta Corporation, reported in AIR 1982 Cal 314, mr. Ghosh submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, after examining the scope and ambit of the similar provision of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951, held that "the person responsible" means a person who has something to do with the work of construction or who is in a position to comply with an order of demolition. It was further held therein that "the person responsible" does not include an occupier of the unauthorised construction who has nothing to do with the work of such construction or any addition to it. Relying upon the said decision, mr. Ghosh contended that the occupiers of the building in question who have no connection whatsoever with the construction of the building, cannot claim any opportunity of hearing in connection with the demolition proceeding.

( 7 ) MR. Ghosh contended that if the said principles are ap