JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The matter relates to the circuit bench at Jalpaiguri. As the bench is currently not in session the same has been filed before the principal bench citing urgency.

2. Facts and points of law being similar in both the writ petitions, the cases are taken up for consideration analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The petitioners, in both the writ petition, are aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Siliguri Municipal Corporation (‘SMC’ for short) whereby the authority held that there has been contravention to the sanctioned building plan and the deviations and/or unauthorised constructions have been directed to be demolished.

4. After holding that demolition entails civil consequences, the owners and occupiers have been given notice to meet the Commissioner within thirty days from the date of the order. The deviations and/or unauthorised constructions, as pointed out in the joint inspection report, have been directed to be demolished by the concerned department of SMC after a period of thirty days from 27th February, 2023.

5. The aforesaid order was allegedly passed in compliance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble division bench on 6th June, 2022 in MAT 30 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022 (Saumitra Kundu and Others versus Ram Chandra Agarwal and Others) directing SMC to invoke Section 287 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 (‘the Act’ for short). The Court directed the adjudicating authority to afford opportunity of hearing to the private parties before passing final order.

6. The petitioners claim to be the owners and occupiers of the subject premises which has been held to be constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan and direction for demolition of the unauthorised/deviated portions has been given.

7. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them prior to passing the order of demolition. The petitioners have gained ownership of the property nearly a decade back and valuable right accrued in their favour in respect of the said property. Passing order of demolition, behind their back, is contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.

8. It has been contended that the adjudicating authority noticed that, at present there are many other lawful owners and occupiers who are possessing portions of the building in question, but despite having noticed so, did not feel necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the said owners and occupiers prior to passing the impugned order of demolition. After passing the final order, the petitioners have been directed to appear for hearing.

9. It has further been contended that as the adjudicating authority has already made up its mind to demolish the alleged unauthorised portions, accordingly, granting any post decisional hearing will be an idle formality. The outcome of the hearing being predetermined, granting any opportunity of hearing is a mere eye wash and will not serve the purpose.

10. It has been argued that prior to passing the impugned order of demolition, the relevant rules and the sanctioned plan in question were not properly examined by the adjudicating authority. The authority merely acted as a post office and put a rubber seal by blindly accepting the findings of the inspection team. It was the duty of the adjudicating authority to independently apply its mind and thereafter take a decision as to whether demolition is the only remedy to deal with the alleged unauthorised construction.

11. From the impugned order it does not appear that there has been any application of mind prior to accepting the findings of the inspection report. The said inspection was conducted behind the back of the petitioners and, accordingly, the petitioners did not have any opportunity to defend the allegation of unauthorised construction levelled against them.

12. The joint inspection report has also been challenged. It has been argued that the site in