WP(C) 6774/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. RK Bora, learn ed Govt. Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.12.2010, issued by the respondent No.3, namely, Chairman, Howly Town Committee, Howly, directing the petitioner to demolish th e verandah, which is alleged to have been constructed by the petitioner in front of his room, which has been allotted to him by the Howly Town Committee, the pe titioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, se eking appropriate directions to be issued to the respondents. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the notic e, dated 09.12.2010, aforementioned, shows that according to the respondent No.3 , the petitioner has constructed the said verandah without permission from the T own Committee and he has, therefore, been directed to remove the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice so as to enable the cart pullers and rickshaw pullers to enter the market from the front side of his shop or else, t he Town Committee would be compelled to demolish the verandah. On considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this C ourt is of the view that though the petitioner is, if what is stated by the resp ondent No.3 is correct, liable to demolish the verandah, respondent No.3 cannot, except in accordance with law, demolish the said verandah. Situated thus, this writ petition is closed with direction to the respondent No.3 to ensure that the verandah aforementioned is not demolished by the Howly Town Committee except in accordance with law. No order as to costs.