The police are under a statutory obligation to cooperate with and assist the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in carrying into effect and enforcing the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and a statutory duty to assist the commissioner, officer, and employee of the Corporation in the lawful exercise of power vested in them.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition dated May 15, 2007 seeking a mandamus directing the police to co-operate with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for carrying into effect and enforcing the demolition order of the special officer (building) of the Corporation dated May 29, 2004 made under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

2. On the basis of complaint of the owners of the lands, particulars whereof have been given in the writ petition, dated June 30, 2000 the competent authority of the Corporation issued notice under Section 400(1) dated February 12, 2004 initiating the demolition proceedings. The allegation was that on the lands the twelfth and thirteenth respondents, Garia Sabuj Dal, a club registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1963 and Secretary, Garia Sabuj Dal respectively, unauthorisedly erected structures. After making necessary inquiry, recording evidence, and hearing the parties, in the proceedings the special officer (building) of the Corporation made the final order dated May 29, 2004 holding that the twelfth and the thirteenth respondents erected unauthorized constructions, and that they were liable to demolish them. The special officer ordered that if the twelfth and thirteenth respondents failed to demolish the structures, then they would be demolished by the Corporation at the twelfth and thirteenth respondents expense. Feeling aggrieved the twelfth and thirteenth respondents lodged an appeal with the building tribunal of the Corporation that dismissed the appeal on contest by order dated June 28, 2005. Questioning the orders, the twelfth and thirteenth respondents moved this Court by filing W.P. No. 18622 (W) of 2005 that was dismissed by the Single Bench by order dated December 6, 2006. The appeal preferred against the Single Bench decision was dismissed by their Lordships of the Division Bench by order dated August 6, 2007; and the special leave petition filed there against before the Apex Court was summarily dismissed by order dated May 14, 2008.

3. It has been stated in the writ petition that the Corporation that started demolishing the structures could not complete the work because of violent resistance put up by the twelfth and thirteenth respondents and the people engaged by them. It has further been stated that pointing out the situation the Corporation requested police to extend necessary cooperation, but police failed and neglected to take any steps in the matter. The twelfth and thirteenth respondents have filed an opposition alleging that the petitioner has no locus standi to move the writ petition, since in view of order made in proceedings initiated by the competent authority under provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 the lands in question stood vested in the State Government. By filing a reply the petitioner has refuted the allegation by saying that only proceedings were initiated by the competent authority under provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It is his specific case that no order vesting the lands in question in the Government has been made by the competent authority or by any other authority.

4. Counsel for the Corporation has said that his client is ready and willing to enforce the order of the special officer (building) dated May 29, 2004. Counsel for the State has said that his client shall take all necessary steps for extending necessary co-operation to the Corporation for carrying into effect and enforcing the order of the special officer (building) that, as a matter fact, subsequently merged into the orders made by the building tribunal, and the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court. No one has appeared today for the twelfth and thirteenth respondents. It is necessary to record how they have been contesting the case.

5. By order dated January 10, 2008 my Lord the Chief Justice was pleased to assign the case to me. I took it up for hearing on January 14, 2008 when their