The principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing, require that a person facing demolition or unauthorized change of user proceedings be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, which includes the right to inspect and obtain copies of relevant documents, including the sanctioned plan, which is a basic document for determining the legality of the construction or change of user.

( 1 ) TWO proceedings were initiated by the Kolkata Municipal corporation against the petitioners on the basis of the complaints made by the respondent Nos. 11 to 17 who introduced themselves as transferee owners of the premises No. 60/1, Ballygunj Circular Road, kolkata-700 019. One of such proceedings was initiated under section 400 (1) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for demolition of the alleged illegal construction made by the petitioners at the said premises. The other proceeding was initiated under section 416 of the said Act for illegal change of user of the said premises by the petitioners without sanction and/or permission from the Municipal authority.

( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY National Motors of which Laddu Gopal Bajoria is the proprietor, is a tenant of the entire premises No. 60/1, Ballygunj circular Road, Kolkata-19 comprising of 48 Cottachs of land together with a building and outhouses standing thereon.

( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after purchase of the said premises, the respondent nos. 11 to 17 made a complaint vide their letter dated 23rd August, 2005 against the petitioner No. 1 for constructing a semipucca pandal illegally at the said premises without the consent of the said respondents and for illegal letting out of the property for marriage function, parties, kirtans and other social gatherings on payment of huge amounts.

( 4 ) ON receipt of the said complaint, notice under section 400 of the said Act was served upon the complainants, viz. , the respondent Nos. 11 to 17 herein whereby the complainants were called upon to demolish a number of single storied structures illegally constructed in the said premises, within a fortnight from the date of service of the said notice.

( 5 ) THIS Court is still at a loss to understand as to why such a notice was served upon the complainants. However, the complainants replied to the said notice by their letter dated 29th December, 2005. The complainants in their said letter challenged the validity of the said notice on various grounds. According to them, the said notice is a vague one, as the said notice does not disclose and/or specify the portion of the construction which was illegally constructed by the petitioners in the said premises. Non supply of the precis detailing the unauthorised construction and non-disclosure of infringement of any specific building rules, was the other ground on which the validity of the said notice was challenged by the said complainants.

( 6 ) A similar notice was also served upon the petitioner No. 1 by the municipal authorities vide their letter dated 26th December, 2005.

( 7 ) THE petitioner No. 1 replied to the said notice under section 400 of the said Act by his letter dated 2nd January, 2006 whereby the allegation regarding illegal construction at the said premises was denied by the petitioners. The petitioners invited the Municipal authority to hold a joint inspection at the said premises. The petitioners also requested the Municipal authority to supply a copy of the complaint on the basis of which such notice was issued. The Municipal authorities were also requested to withdraw and/or recall and/or rescind the said notice.

( 8 ) BY the said notice, the petitioners were directed to stop unauthorized use of the said premises for any commercial purpose forthwith.

( 9 ) SINCE a portion of the ground floor of the said premises is being used by the petitioners unauthorisedly for commercial purpose in violation of provisions contained in section 416 (1) of the said Act, a notice under section 416 of the said Act was served upon the petitioners.

( 10 ) ON receipt of the said notice, the petitioners wrote a letter to the Special Officer (Building) on 24th January, 2006 requesting the said officer to supply all the relevant papers and documents and inspection report to the petitioners for enabling them to file objection to the said notice. In the said letter, the petitione