M.M. Dutt, J.
1. By consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on day's list.
2. The appeal has been filed by the appellants who are the stall holders in the Bowbazar market. The respondents Samarendra Nath Karuri and Deba Prosad Karuri, trustees to the trust estate of late Nandalal Karuri, the owners of the Bowbazar Market situated at premises Nos. 84/A, 84/1A and 84/3A Bipin Behary Ganguly Street, Calcutta, filed a writ petition before the learned Judge alleging that some unauthorised persons had constructed temporary tin sheds in the passage inside the market thereby inconveniencing the daily user of the said market and adding to the congestion. The Corporation of Calcutta also appeared before the learned Judge. The learned Judge, after hearing the writ petitioners and the Corporation of Calcutta, directed the Commissioner of the Corporation of Calcutta to cause notices to be served on the ownen and/or occupiers of such unauthorised structures inside the market within a period of one week from the date of the order of the learned Judge to the effect that they must demolish and take away the structures together with the belongings contained therin within a period of three days thereafter, failing which the Corporation must demolish these structures taking necessary police help, if required. The Officer-in-Charge of Muchipara Police Station was directed to render all necessary help to the Corporation Authorities in carrying out the order of the learned Judge.
3. The appellants who, as already stated, are the stall holders in the market and who claim to have constructed the said structures, alleged to be unauthorised, were not made parties in the writ petition. In other words, the said order of the learned Judge was passed without giving the appellants any opportunity of being heard. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judge, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.
4. In our opinion, the grievance of the appellants is quite reasonable. Even assuming that the structures are unauthorised, still no demolition order can be made of the said structures without giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard. In the circumstances, we have no other alternative than to set aside the impugned order of the learned Judge.
5. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. We make it clear that the Corporation of Calcutta will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. No order need be made on the application for interim order which shall be deemed to have been disposed of along with this judgment. The undertaking of the appellants is discharged.
6. There will, however, be no order as to costs.