(1) THESE writ petitions have been heard separately but since common questions of law are involved, this Court proposes to dispose of the same by this common judgment.

(2) FOR the sake of clarity, the six first named petitioners shall be referred to by their respective names.

(3) IT is the common grievance of all the petitioners that without taking recourse to any proceeding under Section 400 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act), the Kolkata Municipal corporation (hereafter the Corporation) authorities have proceeded to demolish alleged unauthorised constructions by taking recourse to Section 400 (8) thereof and that since circumstances do not warrant taking recourse thereto, the Corporation ought to be restrained from demolishing any part of the unauthorised constructions raised by them, if at all, and it ought to be directed to initiate proceeding under Section 400 (1) in order to enable them persuade the competent authority to allow retention of alleged unauthorised construction upon realization of penalty.

(4) IT is the allegation against Sunil Chandra Dey (hereafter Sunil)that he has raised a multistoried building (G+4) without obtaining a plan duly sanctioned by the Corporation. This position is admitted by Mr. Bihani, learned Senior Counsel for Sunil.

(5) THE allegation against Subrata Mukherjee (hereafter Subrata) is that construction has been made by him encroaching the mandatory open space without obtaining any sanction from the Corporation. Learned counsel for Subrata has disputed the allegation of the Corporation. However, it appears from the petition that Subratas son had prayed for condonation if any binding rule of the Building Rules has been violated in the process of making construction in the premises concerned.

(6) IT has been alleged against Koel that it has raised certain construction in deviation from the plan sanctioned by the Corporation. Such position has not been disputed by learned Counsel for Koel.

(7) THE allegation against Sk. Manawar Hossain (hereafter Manawar)is that he has constructed the 4th and 5th storeys on the existing three storied building without any sanction and that despite a stop work notice having been issued under Section 400 (1) of the Act, he continued to carry on construction without paying heed to such notice.

(8) THE allegation against Kalpana Dam (hereafter Kalpana) appears to be similar to Manawar.

(9) THE allegation against M/s. Sursi Exim Private Limited (hereafter sursi) is that it has started construction of brick walls in the ground floor of premises No. 169/1, Motilal Nehru Road, Kolkata without any sanction with the intention of converting the sanctioned car parking space for commercial purposes.

(10) ON the factual aspect of the case pertaining to Sunil, Mr. Bihani, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Sunil is a displaced person from east Pakistan (Bangladesh) in whose favour the Refugee Rehabilitation directorate, Government of West Bengal had allotted a plot in the Jodhpur quarter Colony, Police Station Lake, District South 24Parganas vide a memo dated 9. 6. 1994. In terms of the letter of allotment, Sunil was required to start erection of a building on the plot within three months from receipt of the said memo, failing which the allotment would be considered as cancelled. A writ petition was filed before this Court questioning such allotment and owing to an interim order passed thereon, Sunil was restrained from raising construction. The writ petition succeeded. Sunil was not a party to the writ petition. However, the writ petition was allowed. He sought leave of the Division Bench to prefer appeal and on obtaining such leave the appeal preferred by him was heard and allowed by the judgment dated 20. 6. 06. Since the allotment letter revived on the appeal being allowed by the Division Bench, Sunil had only three months time to start erection and, therefore, without making any application for sanction of a buildi