IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized construction cannot be regularized as a minor deviation under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, and must be demolished if not sanctioned.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner is aggrieved with the action of the respondent no.1/Howrah Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’ in short) in allowing the private respondent nos. 9 to 11 to retain the floor beyond G+1 structure in premises no.53, Gopal Banerjee Lane, P.S Shibpur, Ward No.26, District Howrah, PIN 711101.

2. In support of the instant writ petition Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no.20 of the writ petition. It is submitted that pursuant to the queries as made by the writ petitioner under RTI Act, 2005 the respondent no.1/Corporation under cover of its letter dated December 19, 2020 communicated that in respect of holding no.53 Gopal Banerjee Lane, Ward no.26, P.S Shibpur, District Howrah, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said premises’) sanction was granted on 11.10.2002 for construction of a G+1 residential building. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that on receipt of such communication, the writ petitioner under cover of its letter dated November 09, 2021 addressed to the Commissioner of the said Corporation informed that an additional floor has been constructed over the G+1 building of the said premises which is not only illegal but is also totally unauthorized.

3. Since the respondent no.1/ Corporation and its officials sat tight over the matter the writ petitioner approached this High Court by filing WPA 18562 of 2021 and by an order dated January 03, 2022 a Coordinate Bench of this High Court while disposing the said writ petition directed the Corporation to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the writ petitioner with a further direction to the Corporation to answer as to whether the information as provided by the said Corporation under cover of its letter dated December 19,2020 was issued upon consulting the relevant records, whether any revised plan was sanctioned by the said Corporation in 2004 but subsequently cancelled and whether the contentions of the private respondent nos. 9 to 11 as raised in the said writ petition were correct. The respondent no.4 being the Assistant Engineer, Borough IV of the said Corporation under cover of its memo dated 26.04.2022 passed the reasoned order in the following manner :-

“Hon’ble Court in the judgment & order dtd: 03.01.2022 after giving a decision on the following three issued-

(a) Whether the letter dated: 19-12-2020 being annexure P4 to the writ petition was issued upon consulting the records?

(b) Whether the revised plan was sanctioned by the authority in the year 2004 but subsequently cancelled.

(c) Whether at all the contentions of the respondent nos.-9 to 11 were correct? In dealing with the issues (a), I would like to state that this letter is given in reply to the information sought for under RTI Act, 2005 vide letter date: 16-10-2020 and not the letter under RTI Act, 2005, dtd:10-10-2018 so annexed as annexure P3. The petitioner deliberately suppressed the same. The information sought for in the said letter dtd: 16-10-2020, has been categorically dealt in within the letter dtd:19-12-2020.

(b) in dealing with the issue no.-(b) it is stated that the revised plan can never be sanctioned and accordingly it was not sanctioned but the floor was retained after accepting requisite fees.

(c) in dealing with issue no. (c ), it is stated that the contentions of the Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.-9 to 11 is not correct in as much as revised sanction plan was never issued in favour of them. Only they were allowed to retain the floor beyond G+1 structure after accepting the requisite fees in respect of BMR No.-153/B-III/02-03. This is my reasoned order in compliance with the judgment and order dtd:03-01-2022 passed in the said writ petition.”

4. At this juncture Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner draws attention of this Court to Sections