WP(C) 63/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, lear ned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the notice dated 1st Janua ry, 2011 issued by the Chairman, Howly Town Committee, whereby and where-under t he petitioner has been asked to demolish the unauthorized construction made, in front of the shop room allotted to him, within 7th January, 2011. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitio ner has been allotted with shop room No.16 by Howly Town Committee and the Town Committee sought to evict the petitioner without following the due process of la w. Referring to the order dated 22nd December, 2010 passed in WP(C) No.6774/201 0, it has further been submitted that despite the order passed by this Court, th e petitioner is sought to be evicted from the veranda of the said shop room with out following the due process of law. It appears from the impugned notice dated 1st January, 2011 that the Chairman of Howly Town Committee has directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized con struction from the veranda of shop room No.16, which was settled with him by the Town Committee. Since raising of such unauthorized construction by the petitioner has not been d isputed, the Town Committee has the power to remove the unauthorized constructio n, as the same causes inconvenience for movement. Hence, no illegality can be f ound in the action on the part of the Howly Town Committee in issuing the notice and asking the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction. However, th e petitioner may be allowed time till 17th January, 2011 to remove such unauthor ized construction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No cost.