Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Port Blair has reaffirmed the role of writ jurisdiction in addressing municipal inaction against unauthorized construction, holding that a third party or public-spirited citizen can approach the writ court where illegal construction affects the public at large and the competent authorities fail to take effective action. The Division Bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee made the observation while deciding the appeal in Dr. R. Thulasidasan v. Shri M. Sethu & Ors., MAT 82 of 2026, arising from a dispute concerning unauthorized construction of a hotel building in Sri Vijaya Puram, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The proceedings arose from an earlier complaint concerning alleged violations in the construction of the hotel. The writ petitioner had no ownership or other personal interest in the property. His involvement began after he responded to a public appeal issued through a newspaper by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking information regarding unauthorized constructions and encroachments. Acting on that appeal, the writ petitioner brought the alleged unauthorized construction to the attention of the authorities and subsequently sought implementation of a demolition order that had been passed as far back as 2011.
A Single Bench of the High Court had directed the Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council to seal the hotel and implement the earlier demolition order. Aggrieved by that direction, Dr. R. Thulasidasan approached the Division Bench, principally contending that the writ petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to seek enforcement of a demolition order concerning property with which he had no connection.
The appellant’s challenge therefore raised an important question concerning the limits of public interest litigation and the maintainability of a writ petition by a person who is neither the owner nor an occupier of the property in question. The appellant argued that a private individual could not use writ jurisdiction to pursue demolition of another person’s property merely because he considered the construction unauthorized.
The Division Bench rejected that contention. It held that unauthorized construction is not necessarily a purely private dispute between the property owner and municipal authorities. Illegal structures can have consequences extending beyond the boundaries of the property because they place additional pressure on civic infrastructure, affect planned urban development and may create safety risks for neighbouring residents and the public.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, recognising that a public-spirited citizen can bring unauthorized construction to the attention of regulatory and permission-granting authorities. The principle assumes particular significance where the competent authority is either complacent or fails to enforce the law despite being placed on notice of an alleged violation.
The Bench observed that “rampant unauthorized construction in urban areas is a burden on the civic amenities” and constitutes a “safety hazard”. The Court further emphasised that such construction can deny other citizens a dignified living by exposing them to risks, inconvenience and hardship.
The dispute also involved the question of regularization. The appellant contended that the construction could potentially be brought within a regularization scheme formulated by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The Court, however, found that the scale and nature of the deviations were substantial and could not simply be treated as minor departures capable of being regularized as a matter of course.
The sanctioned plan permitted a total floor area of 293.49 square metres. The construction actually found at the site measured approximately 1,156.50 square metres. The difference amounted to 863.01 square metres of excess construction. The authorities had additionally identified unauthorized additional floors, commercial use contrary to the sanctioned permission and encroachment upon public land.
Against that factual background, the Division Bench held that regularization could not be claimed as an automatic entitlement. The Court cautioned that judicial proceedings cannot be used to undertake what would effectively amount to “judicial regularization” of buildings constructed without the necessary permissions.
At the same time, the Court did not completely disregard the possibility of administrative regularization. It directed that the demolition order should be implemented after taking into consideration the modified or proposed regularization scheme, to the extent that such scheme was legally applicable to the construction in question.
The Bench consequently upheld the essential direction for demolition while granting an additional period of eight weeks for carrying it out. The decision thus attempts to balance enforcement of planning laws with the possibility of lawful regularization under an applicable government scheme.
The judgment carries significance beyond the individual hotel dispute. It establishes that where unauthorized construction has potential consequences for the public and municipal authorities fail to discharge their statutory responsibilities, the absence of a personal or proprietary interest does not necessarily prevent a citizen from invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The decision also reinforces the principle that building regulations are not merely technical requirements applicable to individual property owners. They form part of a broader statutory framework intended to ensure planned development, orderly use of land, protection of public spaces and safety of residents. In the context of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the Court specifically noted that construction laws and allied regulations are intended to secure planned and systematic development.
Unauthorized construction, according to the Court, undermines that objective. Consequently, when authorities fail to enforce demolition orders or otherwise permit unlawful structures to continue, the issue can acquire a public character warranting judicial intervention.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant, Dr. R. Thulasidasan, challenged the Single Bench order primarily on the ground that the writ petition itself was not maintainable at the instance of the complainant. According to the appellant, the writ petitioner had no legal or proprietary connection with the hotel property and was therefore not entitled to seek directions affecting the appellant’s property rights.
The appellant’s case was that the writ petitioner was essentially a stranger to the property. Since he was neither the owner nor an occupier of the hotel, he could not claim any personal legal injury arising from the construction. The appellant consequently questioned the petitioner’s locus to seek implementation of a demolition order concerning the building.
This argument was founded on the traditional principle of locus standi, under which a person ordinarily approaching a court must demonstrate a legally recognisable grievance. The appellant sought to distinguish a genuine public interest proceeding from a private individual attempting to enforce municipal regulations concerning someone else’s property.
The appellant also challenged the direction to seal the hotel and implement the demolition order. He relied upon a regularization policy formulated by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and contended that the authorities were required to consider whether the deviations could be regularized rather than proceeding directly with demolition.
The submission was that the existence of a regularization mechanism meant that demolition should not automatically follow merely because there were deviations from the sanctioned plan. According to the appellant, the applicable policy provided a possible route through which the construction could be brought into conformity with the regulatory framework.
The appellant therefore sought interference with the Single Bench’s direction, contending that the demolition order should not be mechanically enforced without considering the possibility of regularization.
The respondents, on the other hand, defended the maintainability of the writ petition and the enforcement of the demolition order. Their position was that unauthorized construction was a matter affecting the public and not merely a private dispute between the appellant and the municipal authorities.
The respondents relied upon the circumstances in which the writ petitioner had approached the authorities. The petitioner had responded to a public appeal issued through a newspaper by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking information about unauthorized constructions and encroachments. He subsequently lodged a complaint before the competent authorities seeking action concerning the hotel construction and implementation of the demolition order passed in 2011.
The respondents’ case was therefore that the writ petitioner had not arbitrarily targeted the appellant’s property. He had responded to a governmental request for information and brought an alleged violation of construction law to the attention of the authorities. The issue became one of public administration when the authorities failed to act effectively upon the complaint.
The respondents further maintained that the unauthorized construction was substantial rather than merely technical. The sanctioned plan permitted a floor area of only 293.49 square metres, whereas the construction actually measured 1,156.50 square metres. The resulting excess of 863.01 square metres was accompanied by allegations of unauthorized additional floors, illegal commercial conversion and encroachment upon public land.
On this factual basis, the respondents contended that the construction could not be treated as a minor deviation deserving automatic protection. The scale of the violation, they argued, demonstrated that the structure had been raised substantially beyond the permissions granted under the sanctioned plan.
The respondents also relied upon the public consequences of unauthorized construction. Building regulations are intended not merely to protect private property rights but to maintain orderly development, adequate civic infrastructure and public safety. An unauthorized structure may impose additional pressure on roads, drainage, water supply, electricity and other municipal facilities, while also affecting neighbouring properties and public spaces.
The respondents consequently argued that the absence of a personal interest on the part of the writ petitioner could not defeat the proceeding where the alleged illegality affected the public at large.
The legal position relied upon by the respondents found support in the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation. That judgment recognised the entitlement of a public-spirited citizen to bring unauthorized construction to the attention of the authorities responsible for granting permissions and enforcing building regulations.
The respondents further argued that once an unauthorized construction had been identified and a demolition order had been passed, the municipal authorities could not simply remain inactive. Failure to enforce their own statutory orders would defeat the purpose of the regulatory regime and encourage continued violations.
With regard to regularization, the respondents maintained that the appellant could not claim it as an absolute right. A regularization policy, where one exists, operates within the conditions and limitations prescribed by the competent authority. It cannot automatically validate every construction irrespective of its extent or nature.
The dispute therefore required the Division Bench to balance three competing considerations: the appellant’s claim to protection of his property and consideration of regularization, the statutory duty of the municipal authorities to enforce building regulations, and the public interest in ensuring that unauthorized construction does not remain unchecked.
Court’s Judgment:
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, rejected the appellant’s challenge and upheld the essential directions issued by the Single Bench concerning the unauthorized hotel construction.
The Court’s first significant finding concerned locus standi. It rejected the argument that a writ petition could not be maintained merely because the complainant had no personal connection with the property. The Bench recognised that unauthorized construction can generate consequences affecting persons beyond the property owner and can therefore give rise to a legitimate public law grievance.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The principle emerging from that precedent is that a public-spirited citizen is not required to demonstrate ownership of neighbouring property or a private proprietary injury before bringing an unauthorized construction to the notice of the competent regulatory authorities.
The Division Bench expressly observed that rampant unauthorized construction places a burden upon civic amenities and creates safety hazards for members of the public. Such structures can cause risks, inconvenience and hardship to other citizens and thereby affect their ability to enjoy a dignified living environment.
This reasoning is important because it places building regulation within the sphere of public law. A municipal building permission is not merely an agreement between an owner and a local authority. It forms part of a statutory planning framework designed to regulate the manner in which land and structures develop within an urban area.
When a person constructs substantially beyond the sanctioned plan, the consequences may extend to roads, drainage, sanitation, fire safety, traffic, public access and neighbouring properties. A structure occupying public land can also directly interfere with the rights of the general public.
The Court consequently held that where an infraction of law is likely to affect the public at large and the competent authority fails to take appropriate action, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can legitimately be invoked.
The Bench specifically held that a writ petition was maintainable at the instance of such a third party. The Court therefore rejected the appellant’s threshold objection based upon locus standi.
The circumstances in which the writ petitioner had acted also weighed in favour of maintainability. The petitioner had responded to an appeal published by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking information concerning unauthorized constructions and encroachments. His subsequent complaint was therefore not an isolated attempt to interfere in a private property dispute but arose in the context of a public initiative undertaken by the Administration itself.
The Court further held that where a citizen brings an alleged violation to the attention of a statutory authority and the authority fails to take appropriate action, the complainant can seek a direction from the writ court requiring the authority to perform its statutory duty.
This does not mean that every complaint made by a third party concerning a building automatically becomes a public interest litigation. The Court’s reasoning is tied to the existence of an alleged statutory violation affecting the public and corresponding failure by the competent authority to discharge its obligations.
The judgment therefore preserves an important judicial distinction. Private disputes over title, possession or purely individual property rights cannot ordinarily be converted into public interest proceedings merely by describing them as public interest. But where the complaint concerns unlawful construction and municipal inaction with consequences for the wider public, a third party may have sufficient standing to invoke writ jurisdiction.
The Court then examined the nature and extent of the construction. The sanctioned plan permitted a total floor area of 293.49 square metres. The actual construction measured 1,156.50 square metres. This resulted in an excess construction of 863.01 square metres.
The magnitude of the deviation was a critical consideration. The Court was not dealing with a minor departure from an approved plan. The difference between the sanctioned and actual construction demonstrated a substantial expansion beyond the permission granted by the competent authority.
The authorities had also identified unauthorized additional floors, an illegal conversion of the premises for commercial purposes and encroachment upon public land. These factors further strengthened the conclusion that the construction could not simply be treated as an insignificant technical violation.
The Court consequently rejected any suggestion that regularization was an automatic entitlement. It made clear that the existence of a regularization policy does not mean that every unauthorized construction must necessarily be protected from demolition.
Regularization is dependent upon the terms of the applicable statutory or administrative scheme. The competent authority must determine whether the particular construction satisfies the prescribed requirements. A property owner cannot demand regularization merely because a policy exists.
The Bench was particularly cautious about the role of courts in this process. It held that courts cannot undertake “judicial regularization” of buildings erected without requisite permissions. The phrase captures an important principle of separation of functions: the Court can review the legality of administrative decisions and direct authorities to perform statutory duties, but it cannot itself assume the role of the planning or municipal authority and retrospectively grant permissions that the competent authority has not granted.
This principle is especially significant in cases involving large deviations from sanctioned plans. If courts were to routinely protect unauthorized structures by directing their regularization irrespective of statutory limits, it could effectively undermine the planning regime and create an incentive for individuals to construct first and seek judicial protection later.
At the same time, the Court did not order immediate demolition without considering the possibility that a subsequently modified or proposed regularization scheme might have some application. The Bench directed the authorities to implement the demolition order after taking into consideration the applicable modified or proposed regularization scheme, to the extent it was legally applicable to the construction.
This qualification reflects a balanced approach. The Court did not treat demolition as an inevitable consequence irrespective of subsequent government policy, but neither did it permit the existence of a possible regularization scheme to indefinitely prevent enforcement of an existing demolition order.
The Court ultimately upheld the direction concerning demolition while extending the time for carrying it out by eight weeks. The extension provided the authorities and concerned parties an opportunity to consider the applicability of the relevant regularization framework before the demolition order was implemented.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that statutory authorities cannot remain passive once unauthorized construction has been brought to their attention. Municipal bodies entrusted with enforcement of building regulations are expected to discharge those functions in accordance with law.
Where an authority fails to act despitethe existence of a violation and a valid demolition order,