The duty of the municipal authority to ensure prompt demolition of unauthorized constructions and the precedence of the order of a higher court over that of a subordinate court.

JUDGMENT

arijit Banerjee, J. - This case is a classic example of abuse of process of Court by the appellant.

2. The matter relates to premises nos. 62/a/2 and 62/a/3, J.N. Mukherjee Road, Ghusuri, Howrah. Complaining that the appellant/private respondent is making unauthorised construction on the said premises, the writ petitioners made a representation to the Howrah Municipal Corporation (in short 'HMC'). alleging inaction on the part of HMC, the writ petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. no. 17010 (W) of 2012. Such writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by an order dated September 13, 2012, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

'Having regard to the fact that the learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no. 4 submits that his client is not raising any construction in the premises in question and also by taking note of the fact that the Howrah Municipal Corporation has not issued any sanctioned plan authorising the private respondent no. 4 to raise any construction in the said premises, this Court disposes of this writ petition by passing an order of injunction restraining the respondent no. 4 from raising any construction in the premises-in-question without any legal authority and without obtaining any sanctioned plan from the municipal authority.

It is made clear that in the event any complaint is received by municipal authority from the petitioner and/or anyone else regarding any unauthorised construction in the said premises, the municipal authority will take steps in accordance with law.'

3. It appears that in spite of the aforesaid restraint order, the appellant made unauthorised construction on the said premises. This prompted the writ petitioners to file another writ petition being W.P. no. 19494 (W) of 2013 praying for a direction upon HMC to implement the demolition order dated June 15, 2012, passed by HMC in respect of the unauthorised construction made by the appellant. The appellant also filed a writ petition being W.P. no 28954 (W) of 2013 challenging the demolition proceedings and the order of demolition.

4. The two writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by an order dated September 24, 2013. The learned Judge recorded the admission made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned construction had been made without obtaining any sanctioned plan from the Municipal authority. The learned Judge allowed the petition of the writ petitioners. The appellant was directed to remove the entire unauthorised construction within a fortnight, failing which, the Municipal authority was directed to demolish such construction and realise the cost thereof from the appellant.

5. The appellant's appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by a Division Bench by a judgment and order dated December 19, 2013. The Division Bench also recorded the admission of the appellant that she had made unauthorised construction on the ground floor as well as first floor of the concerned building to the extent of 56.56 Sq. mts.

6. It is pertinent to note that in a suit being Title Suit No. 165 of 2007, on august 6, 2014, the Civil Court passed a decree of eviction against the appellant herein in respect of the concerned property.

7. Since the order of demolition passed by the HMC remained unimplemented and further unauthorised construction was allegedly being made by the appellant, the writ petitioners approached this Court once again by filing W.P. no. 19783 (W) of 2016. By an order dated September 22, 2016 the learned Single Judge recorded that the demolition order has become final and binding between the properties. The learned Judge directed that the Commissioner of HMC will ensure that the demolition order is carried out within four weeks.

8. alleging violation of the order dated September 22, 2016, the writ petitioners filed a contempt application being CPaN No. 338 of 2017. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Commissioner of the HMC by an order dated May 17, 2017 again dir