WP(C) 5156/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr MH Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs HM Phukan , learned state counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 4. Respondent nos.2 and 3 are not contesting this proceeding despite service of notice. None appears fo r the respondent no.5, though the name of the learned counsel representing him i s shown on the cause-list. The petitioners, in this petition, have challenged the order dated 27th June 2002 passed by the Chairman, Bongaigaon Development Authority, Bongaigaon, directing them to remove the construction in question within fifteen days from t he date of receipt of that order, failing which the authority would remove the n ewly-constructed portion without further communication. Ground of challenge to the said order is that before issuance of such or der no notice had been issued to the petitioners and thereby violating the basic principles of natural justice. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the ground on which the demol ition order was issued ~ non-submission of any reply to the communications dated 23rd January 2002, 29th January 2002 and 30th April 2002 ~ is non-existent, as they submitted their reply thereto before the authority but the latter did not t ake into consideration the same prior to passing the impugned order dated 27th J une 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the order dated 27th June 2002 may be set aside. Learned state counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 4 submitted that since the order of demolition was issued by the Bongaigaon development aut hority, it is to defend such action. The respondent nos.2 & 3, as noticed above, are neither contesting this proceeding nor has filed any affidavit-in-opposition. It appears from impugned order dated 27th June 2002 that it was issued o n the ground of non-submission of reply to the communications dated 23rd January 2002, 29th January 2002 and 30th April 2002. The petitioners, on receipt of the order dated 27th June 2002, submitted an application before the respondent no.3 on 10.7.2002 intimating that on receipt of those communications, they filed the ir replies, enclosing copies thereof. This assertion of the petitioners has not been denied by the respondents by filing any affidavit-in-opposition and as such , the said assertion has to be treated as correct. As noticed above, the Chairman of the Bongaigaon Development Authority(r espondent no.3) has passed the order only on the ground of non-submission of rep lies to the aforesaid communications. The order dated 27th June 2002 does not re flect as to how and in what manner there was violation of the approved plan. The application dated 10th July 2002 reveals filing of replies in response to the a foresaid communications. That being the position, the communication dated 27th June 2002 issued b y the Chairman, Bongaigaon Development Authority (respondent no.3) is set aside. Consequently, the communication dated 7th May 2003 is also set aside. The respo ndent no.3 is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioners and a fter taking into consideration the reply submitted in response to the said commu nications. The petitioner shall, within 10(ten) days from today, file certified copy of this order as well as the complete set of writ petition before the Chair man, who shall complete the aforesaid exercise within 45(fourty-five) days there from. Till such an order is passed, the petitioners shall not make any new cons truction in the building in question. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.