The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized construction, in deviation of prescribed norms and provisions, is liable for demolition.

Asok Potsangbam, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.C. Nath, learned Counsel, Mr. S. Chamaria, Standing Counsel, GMC and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior Counsel for the G.M.C.

2. This is the second round of litigation. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, disposing of the representation dated 10.4.2007, which was filed by the petitioner pursuant to judgment and order dated 26.3.2007 passed by this Court in the first round of litigation i.e. W.P. (C) No. 1340/2007. The Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, disposed of the aforesaid representation by holding that the building constructed by the petitioner was unauthorized and without necessary approval of the authority and, consequently, GMC was directed to take necessary action against the unauthorized construction of the petitioner as per GMC Act and Building Byelaws framed thereunder.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 11.3.1998, he applied for permission, as required under Section 328 of the GMC Act, for construction of his residential building over a plot of land at Uzanbazar, Guwahati and as the permission was not forthcoming even after waiting for 60 days, he went on with the construction of his residential building. The further case of the petitioner is that after completion of first floor, he applied for assessment of his residential building and GMC, after due assessment, allotted Holding No. 95 to the writ petitioner. The petitioner also annexed few receipts showing payment of, Municipal Taxes, Urban Taxes etc. in respect of Holding No. 95 i.e. residential building of the petitioner.

4. The case of Respondents No. 2 and 3 i.e. Guwahati Municipal Corporation, is that a complaint dated 6.2.2006 was received by the office of the GMC from the proforma Respondents No. 7 and 8 who claim to be the persons residing on the western side of the petitioner's building, alleging therein that the construction of the petitioner's residential building is without necessary permission from the GMC and without approval of any building plan etc. and that the aerial projection of the building of the petitioner had encroached upon the land of the Respondents No. 7 and 8 etc.

5. In order to ascertain the allegations made in the aforesaid complaint, GMC caused a site inspection by its engineers to enquire into the allegations and in that, it was found that the consumption in question did not maintain setbacks and other norms prescribed by the GMC Act and Building Byelaws and this led the GMC to issue a notice dated 2.3.2006 asking the petitioner to stop further construction and to produce the approved plan and NOC issued to him in connection with the construction of his building. A photocopy of the NOC dated 12.10.2004 was submitted by the petitioner and on verification from records, GMC found the aforesaid NOC a forged one and, as a consequence thereof, an FIR was lodged and Latasil Police Station Case No. 3232 of 2007 under r Sections 420/468/471 I.P.C. was registered.

6. On 15.3.2007, GMC issued another notice under Section 337 of the GMC Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to discontinue with further construction of his building and submit a show cause reply within seven days as to why the unauthorized construction/deviation should not be demolished. The petitioner, instead of replying to the notice mentioned above, chose to challenge the notice dated 15.3.2007 before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1340 of 2007 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by an order dated 26.3.2007 directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the Corporation by highlighting all his grievances within 15 days and the Corporation was also directed to dispose of the representation by passing a speaking order within a period of one month. The representation so submi