Proper service of notice under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act can be achieved through speed post, satisfying statutory requirements for natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. By consent of the parties the appeal and the connected application were taken up for hearing together.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated December 8, 2022, whereby the appellant’s writ petition being WPO no. 2971 of 2022 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge.

3. Demolition proceedings were initiated by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short KMC) under Section 400 (1) of the KMC Act, 1980, in respect of premises no. B- 6, 7 & 8 Nawab Wajid Ali Shah Road, Word-134, Borough-xv, Kolkata 700024 (in short “the said premises”). The appellant claims to be a co-owner of the said premises.

4. The short case of the appellant is that all throughout he participated in the demolition proceedings. When on May 17, 2017, the appellant appeared before the Special Officer (Building), the hearing was not held. Thereafter time and again, the KMC officials informed the appellant that the next date of hearing would be communicated to him. However, instead of receiving any notice of further hearing, the appellant received a copy of a purported order dated May 19, 2017, passed by the Special Officer (Building). The order directed demolition of the building at the said premises on the ground of the same being unauthorised. The order was however signed on June 19, 2017. A corrigendum dated August 7, 2017, was issued by the Special Officer (Building) correcting the date of the order as June 19, 2017, instead of May 19, 2017.

5. Subsequently the appellant received a notice dated 20.09.2022 under Sections 544 and 546 of the KMC Act. Such notice was to the effect that from October 28, 2022, onwards, KMC workmen will enter the said building for the purpose of demolition of the same.

6. At this stage the appellant approached the learned Single Judge challenging the notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the KMC Act as also the demolition order dated June 19, 2017.

7. The learned Judge recorded that the notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the KMC Act mentioned on May 19, 2017, as the date of the demolition order passed by the Special Officer (Building). Upon going through the records of the case and upon considering the corrigendum issued on August 7, 2017, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the date of the demolition order was in fact June 19, 2017. Since the notice under Sections 544 and 546 of the KMC Act mentioned the date of the demolition order as May 19, 2017, the learned Judge by an order dated November 22, 2022, set aside the notice dated September 20, 2022. The learned Judge adjourned the writ petition to enable production of the records of the case, to assist the learned Judge to decide the challenge to the demolition order.

8. On the adjourned date, the sole argument before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the writ petitioner, was that notice of the hearing scheduled to be held on June 15, 2017, was not served upon the appellant/writ petitioner who is the person responsible for the impugned construction. The demolition order dated June 19, 2017, therefore, was passed behind the back of the appellant. The order is null and void as having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.

9. The learned Judge, upon perusing the records of the case found that the notice of hearing was sent through speed post on June 5, 2017. The same was sought to be served on the writ petitioner