Sumita Dutta @APPELLANT@Hash Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Others

The Court: The pendency of the writ petition has been challenged by the District Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons of Bengal on the ground that

the writ petitioner is not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5

and 6 strenuously contends that the writ petitioner being an individual/citizen and not being a government undertaking cannot challenge the acts of the

Municipal Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, as presently advised and as I read the Constitution of India, the right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not

limited or even restricted to those who are authorities under Article 12. I would rather have thought that such authorities could be proper, if not

necessary parties as respondents. Accordingly, the submissions of Mr. Sarkar for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 are overruled.

Of more moment is the objection raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent who submits that the writ petitioner has lost his locus

to maintain the petition because he has suffered an award of eviction at the instance of the 7th respondent. His submission is that this arbitral award

has achieved finality. That is not disputed.

However, the issue involved in this petition is that where a person is admittedly in occupation of a certain part of premises and that part has been

sought to be demolished by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 whether without hearing such person, any order of demolition can be passed. On behalf of the

7th respondent it is submitted that Mr. Arindam Banerjee’s client, the petitioner was actually heard and he filed written notes of submission before

the Corporation. Mr. Banerjee on instruction strenuously denies such submission.

Be that as it may, this entire case is based on the order passed by me on May 23, 2018 in T No. 12 of 2018 (The District Grand Lodge of Mark

Master Masons, Bengal & Anr. Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Others) which is at Annexure P6 to the writ petition. On query, the

learned Counsel for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has submitted that his client is yet to pass a final order in terms of my aforesaid order dated

May 23, 2018.

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the allegations of the parties and without calling for affidavits or deciding any other question on merit, I

direct the respondent/Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its authorities to pass a reasoned order in terms of my earlier order dated May 23, 2018 after

giving fullest opportunity of being heard to all concerned parties, if not already granted and to take on record written notes of submission from all the

parties concerned including the 7th respondent, the writ petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and thereafter to pass a reasoned order where any

point which is raised or which has been raised by the parties shall be considered and disposed of.

If necessary, a fresh hearing shall be granted in terms of today’s order and the decision of the Corporation shall be communicated to the parties

no later than one week after re-opening of this Court. For a period of one week after communication of such order of the authority, no effect shall be

given to the order. The allegations contained in the petitioner are deemed to have been denied. Nothing contained in the order shall influence the

respondent authorities when they take their decision. All parties to act on xerox signed copy of the dictated order on the usual undertaking.