SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

(1) The appeal is directed against an order disposing of a writ petition in which a decision rendered by the appellate authority under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Municipal) Regulation, 1994 had been assailed. The effect of the appellate order being set aside is that a direction for the demolition of a construction is revived.

(2) The appellant purchased a piece of land measuring about 800 sq.ft along with a double-storied house standing thereon from a person who had bought the property from the writ petitioner under a Deed of Sale of September 17, 2001. It appears that the writ petitioner is the owner of a contiguous plot of land at Junglighat in the Port Blair Tehsil of the Andamans District. The writ petitioner complained to the Municipality in the year 2003 that the appellant herein had begun illegal construction on his plot of land. The Municipality issued a notice on October 29, 2003 charging the appellant with violation of the Municipal Building Bye-laws and acting in breach of Section 168(f) of the said 1994 Regulation. The specific violation complained was as follows :-"The RCC building being constructed by you without submission of any building plan or obtaining approval of any building plan from the Municipal Council and without leaving required, setback between building line and plot line."

(3) The notice required the appellant to demolish the unauthorized construction, forbear from carrying out further work and show cause as to why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished.

(4) The appellant responded by a writing of October 31, 2003, citing the following justifications: "1, Sir, I have purchased a piece of land with a portion of building from Mr. Suresh Kumar for which D. C. has already given approval Vide his letter No. under Case No. 466/99/DC dt. 11.5.2001. 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar has purchased the above said building from Mrs. P. Sarla Kurnari W/O Shri S. R. S. Panicker, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL has already approved the building plan vide Approval No. 1258 dt. 2.8.1994. 3. The Kitchen portion and toilet portion of my building was also of wooden posts and got decayed and was in dangerous position. And the out side Planks also got decayed due to heavy rains. As timber is not available in the market I have repaired it with RCC columns and out side walls I have removed, the planks and put Hollow Blocks to protect the building from collapsing. I have not demolished my existing building and constructed a new RCC Building. My timber building still exists. So who ever reported, that I have constructed an RCC building is totally wrong and baseless.",

(5) A provisional order followed from the Municipal Council on December 4, 2003 in exercise of its authority under Section 168(f) of the said Regulation of 1994. The Council directed the appellant to demolish the unauthorized construction within 30 days from the date of receipt of the provisional order; or else, render the unauthorized construction liable for demolition by the Municipal Council at the appellants costs and expenses. The counts of violation levelled against the appellant were amplified by the Municipal Council: "1. The RCC building is being constructed without obtaining approval of any building plan from the Municipal Council. 2. The building is being constructed without lea ving required setback between building line and plot line which is non-compound able offence. 3. The retaining wall made on the rear side is used as the wall of septic tank which may cause leakage/seepage of filthy water leading to an unhygienic situation to the building on the lower side."

(6) The appellant furnished his reply on December 9, 2003 asserting the same grounds submitted by his previous letter and claiming that the appellant had left enough room by way of setback. The appellant insisted that the provisional order issued by the Municipal Council was based on a false report. In short, the appellant contended that the appellant had merely b