Shri. Muthu Erulan And ANR v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/519/2025 Shri Muthu Erulan and another Vs.
The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent nos.1 & 2 Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent no.3 Mr. Mit Guha Roy ... for the respondent nos. 4,5&6 [through virtual mode] November 10, 2025 [SR] Item No. 16 This is a matter which requires expeditious disposal of an appeal, by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District. The petitioner preferred the appeal against an order of demolition passed by the municipal council. The order of demolition was passed long time ago, but was pending approval by the appropriate authority.
The respondent nos. 4 to 6 had approached the Court time and again for necessary directions upon the Municipal Council to give effect to the order of the demolition. The learned advocate for the respondent nos.4 to 6 submits that the petitioners slept over their right of appeal. Only when the court had taken a serious view of the delay in execution of the order of demolition, the appeal had been filed belatedly.
On the other hand, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order of demolition passed by the respondent no.3 and
prays for an interim order of stay of demolition. Further direction is sought upon the respondent no.2 to dispose of the appeal.
The first prayer for setting aside the order of demolition made in the writ petition is not accepted and cannot be granted. However, the petitioner has a right of appeal under the law. The petitioner had challenged the order of demolition by filing a connected application in a proceeding filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 6 seeking implementation of the order of demolition. Such application was dismissed by this court. The petitioner filed an appeal from the order of demolition. Thus, the appellate authority will decide the following issues:- (a) Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the demolition order can be entertained after such a long period. If not, whether the appeal should be dismissed as frivolous and as an after thought.
(b) If the authority is of the view that the appeal can be entertained by condoning the delay, in that event, whether the order of demolition passed by the municipal council was sustainable in law or not. There is no quarrel with the proposition that, an unauthorized construction cannot be allowed to continue for days together. The municipal authorities have already found the construction to be unauthorized.
In view of the fact that the demolition process was due to start from November 07, 2025, this court directs the respondent no.2 to complete the entire proceeding within a period of two
weeks from the date of communication of this order. The demolition cannot continue as the appeal will become infructuous.
The municipal authority shall stay its hands and not initiate the demolition for a period of four weeks, or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. However, the authority is requested to adhere to the time line prescribed by the Court, in view of the fact that, the order of demolition has been issued long ago and its implementation is pending. The authority will decide the issues independently.
A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner and to all concerned. Needless to mention, during disposal of the appeal, the petitioner, the respondent nos.4 to 6 as also the municipal council will be heard.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( Shampa Sarkar, J. )