IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a writ petition can be entertained despite alternative remedies if there is a violation of natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following substantive prayers:-

a. A writ in the by mandamus be issued directing the respondent municipal authorities to implement its own order dated 15.12.2003 passed in demolition case no. D/ Case No. 38-D/2003-04, passed by the Mr. N. K. Chakraborty, Special Officer (Building), Kolkata Municipal Corporation so that considerable justice may be done.

b. A writ in the nature of mandamus thereby quashing and set aside the order dated 16.12.2022 in demolishing case No.17-D/XIII/22- 23, passed by Mr. Somenath Boral, Special officer (Building), Kolkata Municipal The Corporation being passed beyond authority.

c. A writ in the nature of certiorari permits a record. A writ in the nature of prohibition thereby restraining the respondent authorities from granting any regularize plan in favour of the private respondent.

2. Background:-

2.1. Petitioner is resident of premises no. 215B, Bhupen Roy road, Behala, Kolkata 700034 and his name was muted at with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

2.2. Private respondent no. 5 is also a resident of adjacent two storied building in the premises being no. 215A, Bhupen Roy road, Behala, Kolkata 700034, which was constructed without living any statutory space.

2.3. Petitioner made a complaint before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with a prayer for demolishing the said unauthorized construction. K.M.C issued a red card on 04.10.2002 against private respondent herein requesting the officer in charge of Behala police station to take action against unauthorized construction. Again the said complaint dated 12.12.2004 was endorsed by Chairman, Borough 13 of K.M.C. and demolition proceeding was initiated against the said unauthorized construction. After hearing of the said proceeding being no. D/Case No. 38D/2003-2004, K.M.C. directed respondent no. 5 to demolish the illegal toilet made in the 1st floor on the rare open side at his own cost and risk.

2.4. Private respondent has violated all relevant rules framed by the K.M.C by way of constructing internal door/ window and ventilator not opening directly to the adjacent building and ultimately built up a privy / bathroom/sanitary keeping window directly open to the bed room’s window of the petitioner. In spite of the demolition order respondent no. 5 did not comply.

2.5. Non-compliance of the demolition order passed by K.M.C was brought to the notice of K.M.C by issuing letters dated 7.02.2014/24.02.2016/05.04.2016.

2.6. Official respondent failed to demolish the said illegal and unauthorized construction for which petitioner filed a writ petition being no. WPA no. 15856 of 2022. In the said writ petition Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court handed down a direction upon the K.M.C to dispose of the letters mentioned above and to pass reasoned order upon giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2.7. In disposing that complaint, K.M.C located some unauthorized portion in the ground floor and permitted regularization vide order dated 16.12.2022 in connection with demolition case no. 38D/2003-04.

3. Case of the respondents:-

3.1. Respondents no. 2, 3, & 4/KMC officials filed affidavit in opposition denying all material allegations made in this instant application contending inter alia that the instant writ application is not at all maintainable as there is alternative remedy of preferring appeal under Section 400(3) of K.M.C Act.

Argument Advanced:-

4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Ajit Kumar Chaubey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to the order passed on 15.12.2003 passed by Ld. Special Officer (Building) K.M.C. wherein special officer considered a complaint against opposite party no. 5, Gopal Chandra Dey and after hearing both side passed an order of demolition of toilet at the cost and risk of respondent no. 5 within one month from the date when order was passed.

5. Mr. Chaubey has further submitted that toilet was removed but again constructed for which he was comp