The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of completion certificate is not a routine matter, and any complaint before the satisfaction of the requirements is premature. The court also emphasized the builder's responsibility to submit necessary documents to the satisfaction of the corporation.

1. The Supplementary affidavit dated May 2, 2017 annexing the document submitted by the petitioners and reply thereto annexing the document submitted by opposite party nos. 2 to 5 in compliance to this Court’s order, kept with record.

2. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed by the builders-developers-petitioners /judgment debtors/opposite parties/appellants, who will be called on hereafter as the petitioners, assailing order dated April 24, 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal refusing the petitioners’ prayer of non-execution of the bailable warrant of arrest directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kolkata Unit-I on May 04, 2015.

3. Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to the order dated May 25, 2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the Revision Petition No. 3432 of 2011 which was instituted by the opposite party no.1, where the petitioners and Kolkata Municipal Corporation were the respondents. The relevant portion of said order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is set out:-

Counsel for the respondent no.1/builder states that he has recently received a notice/demand of Rs. 42,672/- as penalty for unauthorized construction which the builder will deposit/pay to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation shortly and will also complete all the formalities required for issuing the completion certificate. He also undertakes that once the completion certificate is issued there will be no impediment in the complainant obtaining water and sewage connection. Taking this as an undertaking of the builder on record, we dispose of the revision petition. Builder is directed to complete the entire exercise within three months. After completing all the formalities, Kolkata Municipal Corporation is directed to issue completion certificate expeditiously.

4. Mr. Jha expressed grievance by submitting that on completion of the purported constructions though his clients had issued notice to Kolkata Municipal Corporation to issue completion certificate, but the same having not yet been issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation then where was the wrong of his clients for which his clients had to suffer with the order dated May 04, 2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I Kolkata by which rejecting prayer of the petitioners bailable warrant of arrest was directed. Mr. Jha argued that for no fault of his clients i.e. for not doing the work to be done by the Municipal Corporation his clients have become the worst sufferers for which Mr. Jha has sought for interference by this Court. Mr. Jha however cited following two cases in support of his contention:-

(a) L& T Finance Limited Vs. Anup Kumar Bera & Another reported in 2014 0 AIR (Cal) 78; 2014 5 CHN 233; 2014 0 Supreme (Cal) 24; (b)Kamlesh Aggarwal Vs. Narain Singh Dabbas & Anr. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 4.

5. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 4.5.2015 of the District Forum is set out:-

“It is seen from the record that on 19.12.14 jdr nos. 1 to 3 were directed to take step as per provisions laid down in rule 26 and 27 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 for obtaining necessary completion certificate in respect of the suit property in question. But jdr. Nos. 1 to 3 had not complied the said order. That being the position, we are constrained to reject the petition dt. 4.5.15 filed by jdr. Nos. 1 to 3. Issue BWA of Rs. 10,000/0 each (P.R. Bond) against all the three jdrs fixing 29.5.15 E.R. of BWA.

6. Mr. Roy learned Counsel representing opposite party no.1 supporting the impugned order submitted that the instant application would not be maintainable for making interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Banerjee however submitted to supply information as to what steps the corporation had taken on receipt of the notice dated October 19, 2016 and according