1. This is a Rule to show cause why an order passed by the Municipal Magistrate for the demolition of a building in Calcutta should not be set aside On two grounds, namely, first, because the Secretary to the Corporation had no power to make the application which ended in the order complained of, and, secondly, because the building in question had been duly sanctioned.
2. Taking the second point first, we find that in the month of August 1908, sanction was accorded by the District Surveyor, under powers delegated to him by the chairman, to the erection of a certain building. Subsequently another application was made for sanction to an addition to the building as originally proposed, and this was likewise granted by the District Surveyor. No building operations of any kind were begun till after the second application had been disposed of. The contention of Mr. Stokes on behalf of the Municipality is that the District Surveyor had no authority to grant the second sanction inasmuch as the case was, one of sanction to an addition to a building falling under Section 391 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, and, therefore, the only authority by which sanction could, have been granted, was the General Committee. Bat it seems to us to be perfectly clear that Section 391 of the Act applies only to alterations of, and additions to, existing buildings, and that it is impossible to accept the contention that a supplementary application proposing an addition to an already sanctioned plan of a contemplated building can be held to fall within its scope. We think, then, that the additional erection, which was made on the strength of the District Surveyor's approval, was duly sanctioned, and that on this ground the rule must be made absolute.
3. The second point is that the Secretary to the Corporation, who is--be it remembered--also the Secretary to the General Committee, had no power to make the application to the Magistrate. As we have disposed of the rule on the other ground, it is unnecessary for us to say more than that we are inclined to think that, if there was any defect or irregularity in this connection, it is covered by Section 102(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Dr. Rash Behary Ghosh, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, admits that there eon be no question as to the General Committee's having approved of the making of such an application. The fact, therefore, remains that an application was made in accordance with the wishes of the General Committee, and, if there was any irregularity in connection with the presentation of it by the Secretary to the General Committee, we cannot at the moment think of any more appropriate case for the application of Section 102.
5. The Rule is made absolute, and the order is set aside.