GANGTOK, 13 Oct: Former vice president of the Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee and owner of Hotel Superview Himalchuli and Waterfall Resorts, Gangtok, has decided not to continue with his challenge to the notice of the East district administration ordering the demolition of hi hotel. The hotel, a multi-storeyed structure by the national highway which towers over the road to Development Area, had been issued a notice for demolition by the DC East following reports that the structure had suffered damages and could collapse following the earthquake of 18 September.
The hotel owner had approached the High Court challenging this order. Today, however, the counsel for Mr. Bardewa, UP Sharma submitted that he had been instructed not to press the matter further. Accordingly the case was disposed today.
It was decided not to press the matter further as the administration had issued the notice under Section 9 of the Sikkim Allotment of House Sites and Construction of Building (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985. Initially, on 28 September, when the case had come up for hearing, Mr. Bardewa had challenged the notice stating that the order of the DC was without jurisdiction as no such order could be passed by him under Section 144 CrPC, 1973.
It had also been submitted to the Court that before the issuance of the order, no notice was served upon the petitioner and that this was against the principles of natural justice.
For the State, the Additional Advocate General, JB Pradhan, had submitted that the structure was likely to collapse at any moment as it had suffered structural failure and as such, posed a danger not just to the petitioner but to the people living in the neighbourhood as well.
The government had also received a large number of complaints on the danger posed by the structure. At that time, the High Court observed that the matter required detailed consideration but had at the same time noted that if there was any loss of life or property on account of the building collapsing, the petitioner would be held entirely responsible and liable for such losses. The court had also permitted the state to proceed against the petitioner as per law and procedure.
Today, the petitioner decided not to press the matter further in view of the Act under which the order had been issued. What this means is that the structure will now be demolished. Section 9 of the said Act is reproduced below for reference:
Removal of structures which are in ruins or likely to fail :
(1) If at any time it appears to the State Government that any structure in any notified area (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from any building, wall or other structure) is found unsafe for human habitation or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structures or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the State Government may, by a written notice of not less than seven days, require the owner or occupier –
(a) to demolish or to repair such structure in such manner as may be specified in the notice, or
(b) to repair, protect or enclose such structure in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where it appears to the State Government that immediate action is necessary for the purpose of presenting imminent danger to any person or property, it shall be the duty of the State Government itself to take such immediate action; and in such case it shall not be necessary for the State Government to give notice, if it appears to it that the object of taking immediate action shall be defeated by the delay incurred in giving notice.
(3) Where any owner of occupier fails to comply with the notice served upon him, the State Government may demolish or remove such structure or fixture under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and recover the expenses of such demolition or removal from the owner or occupier, as the case may be.
The hotel owner had approached the High Court challenging this order. Today, however, the counsel for Mr. Bardewa, UP Sharma submitted that he had been instructed not to press the matter further. Accordingly the case was disposed today.
It was decided not to press the matter further as the administration had issued the notice under Section 9 of the Sikkim Allotment of House Sites and Construction of Building (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985. Initially, on 28 September, when the case had come up for hearing, Mr. Bardewa had challenged the notice stating that the order of the DC was without jurisdiction as no such order could be passed by him under Section 144 CrPC, 1973.
It had also been submitted to the Court that before the issuance of the order, no notice was served upon the petitioner and that this was against the principles of natural justice.
For the State, the Additional Advocate General, JB Pradhan, had submitted that the structure was likely to collapse at any moment as it had suffered structural failure and as such, posed a danger not just to the petitioner but to the people living in the neighbourhood as well.
The government had also received a large number of complaints on the danger posed by the structure. At that time, the High Court observed that the matter required detailed consideration but had at the same time noted that if there was any loss of life or property on account of the building collapsing, the petitioner would be held entirely responsible and liable for such losses. The court had also permitted the state to proceed against the petitioner as per law and procedure.
Today, the petitioner decided not to press the matter further in view of the Act under which the order had been issued. What this means is that the structure will now be demolished. Section 9 of the said Act is reproduced below for reference:
Removal of structures which are in ruins or likely to fail :
(1) If at any time it appears to the State Government that any structure in any notified area (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from any building, wall or other structure) is found unsafe for human habitation or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structures or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the State Government may, by a written notice of not less than seven days, require the owner or occupier –
(a) to demolish or to repair such structure in such manner as may be specified in the notice, or
(b) to repair, protect or enclose such structure in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where it appears to the State Government that immediate action is necessary for the purpose of presenting imminent danger to any person or property, it shall be the duty of the State Government itself to take such immediate action; and in such case it shall not be necessary for the State Government to give notice, if it appears to it that the object of taking immediate action shall be defeated by the delay incurred in giving notice.
(3) Where any owner of occupier fails to comply with the notice served upon him, the State Government may demolish or remove such structure or fixture under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and recover the expenses of such demolition or removal from the owner or occupier, as the case may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Readers are invited to comment on, criticise, run down, even appreciate if they like something in this blog. Comments carrying abusive/ indecorous language and personal attacks, except when against the people working on this blog, will be deleted. It will be exciting for all to enjoy some earnest debates on this blog...