C.H.Babu Rao v. The Port Blair Municipal Council

15.02.2022 Court No. 19 Item no.1 sn CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR WPA No. 5 of 2022 Shri C.H. Babu Rao vs.

The Port Blair Municipal Council & anr.

(via video conference) Mr. Prohit Mohan Lal .....for the petitioner. Mr. Arul Prasanth ..for the respondents. The petitioner is the owner of a property bearing survey no. 284/2 measuring an area of 100 Sq.Mts. situated at Japan Road, Thirupati Temple, Dairy Farm Village under Port Blair Tehsil, District South Andaman.

The petitioner constructed a RCC building for residential purpose.

The authorities detected unauthorized construction and directed demolition of the unauthorized construction vide demolition order no. 7508 dated November 11, 2019.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal. The said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another appeal to the second

appellate authority, namely, the Administrator, Andaman & Nicobor Island. The petitioner alleges that the said appeal has not been disposed of. The petitioner is aggrieved because the authorities have issued notices for demolition, during pendency of the second appeal.

Mr. Prasanth, learned advocate for the Port Blair Municipal Council submits that admittedly the second appeal has not yet been disposed of.

In view of the factual situation narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that unless the second appellate authority disposes the appeal in accordance with law and passes an order on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the municipal council shall not be entitled to demolish the property of the petitioner on the basis of the demolition order. The law provides a remedy of second appeal to the petitioner. The petitioner has availed of such remedy. The remedy must be exhausted and reached to its logical conclusion by an appropriate order. Thereafter, the authorities may proceed on the basis of the result of the second appeal. If the authorities proceed with the demolition order during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal would become infructuous, and the remedy of the petitioner would be an empty formality. The court requests that the

appeal be disposed of expeditiously, on its own merits. The court has not decided the issues involved in the appeal. Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to the petitioner.

This writ petition is disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs. Parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)