Judgment : This application is directed against an order dated 17.02.1978 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (P), Corporation of Calcutta and also against the order dated 8.3.80 passed by Building Tribunal. 2. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order for demolition of the unauthorised structures as those structures were without any sanction of the Corporation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has come up to this Court. 3. It is contended that the case before the Deputy Commissioner was fixed on 7th October, 1977. On that date the petitioner made an application for adjournment. That application was allowed and the petitioner was informed that the next date would be intimated to her. It is the case of the petitioner that without any further intimation form the authorities the date was fixed on 17.2.78 and as the petitioner did not know about the date an ex parte order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Building Tribunal also did not really intend to interfere with the order of demolition as the petitioner could not produce any material before the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Mr. Samir Kumar Mookerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, stated that it is the stand of the Corporation of Calcutta that the notice fixing the date of hearing before the Deputy Commissioner on 17th February, 1978 was sent by special messenger. From the endorsement it appears that the notice was tendered to some person who refused to sign. There is nothing to show from the endorsement that the petitioner was not at her house and the notice was tendered to any adult member of the family. 5. In such circumstances, there is much substance in the contention of Mr. Mookerjee, that the did not receive any notice about the date of hearing and as such she could not produce the materials before the Deputy Commissioner. As it is a cue of demolition of structures it is only fit and proper that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place her case. 6. In the result the application succeed and is allowed. The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Building Tribunal are set aside. But in order to avoid delay the petitioner is permitted to place her case before the Building Tribunal, who is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to place her case. In the result the application succeed and is allowed. The orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Building Tribunal are set aside. But in order to avoid delay the petitioner is permitted to place her case before the Building Tribunal, who is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to place her case. There will be no order al to costs in this application. Let the order be communicated to the Building Tribunal immediately.