ORDER The writ petitioners challenge the validity of the purported notices dated January 14, 1986 issued by the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation for the purpose of re-hearing the demolition Case No. 11/D/82-83. Briefly the facts are as follows: 2. The petitioners are the owners of 1, Sambhu Mullick Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The plans for construction of the said premises upto 3rd floor back and middle portion was duly sanctioned by the Corporation authorities on September 18, and November 26, 1980. Plans for the construction of the front portion upto 2nd floor were submitted on January 24, 1981 and a plan for construction upto 10th floor was submitted on March 12, 1981. As the sanction of the plans were wrongly withheld the petitioners moved before this Court a writ petition and T.K. Basu, J., directed the Corporation authorities to sanction the plans provided the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were complied with. After that order was passed the petitioners again moved the Corporation authorities for sanction of the said plans duly submitted. After the Corporation authorities remained silent the petitioners waited for a period of two months and then started the constructions and completed upto 8th floor. After the completion of the said construction work upto 8th floor as aforesaid the Corporation authorities initiated the demolition case bearing No. 11-D/82-83. The said demolition case came up for hearing before the Special Officer (Building) Shri G.P. Ghosh in April 1984 and the hearing was concluded on or about September 11, 1984. As the petitioner did not receive the copy of the order of the Special Officer (Building he wrote the letter dated February 15, 1985 to inform as to whether the same had been disposed of or not. The Special Officer (Building) informed him by the reply dated 23rd February 1985 that the said case had been disposed of by him on November 15, 1984 and he advised the petitioners to contact the City Architect regarding the service of the order. The petitioners then sent their representative to obtain the copy of the order and after several visits an uncertified copy of the order of the demolition case dated 15th November, 1984 was given to the representative. The petitioners then sent their representative to obtain the copy of the order and after several visits an uncertified copy of the order of the demolition case dated 15th November, 1984 was given to the representative. By the said order the Special Officer directed for demolition of the structure in the rear portion of the 9th floor of the premises and the remaining alleged unauthorised constructions at the said premises were allowed to be retained on payment of penalty to be assessed by the Building Department along with the outstanding guard costs. The copy of that order has been annexed as annexure 'B'. However the Building Department did not assess the penalty nor were the petitioners asked to pay the same. 3. But long after the passing of the above order dated November 15, 1984 by the Special Officer (Building) the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 received two purported notices both dated January 14, 1986 from the respondent no. 3, that respondent no. 2 Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation would hear the said demolition case on January 17, 1986 immediately on receiving the notices the petitioners intimated the respondents that the demolition case had already been disposed of and asked for inspection of that order. But the respondent no. 2 did not care to cancel and withdraw such notices and is determined to proceed in the matter. 4. The petitioners challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation to re-hear the demolition case already disposed of by the Special Officer (Building) and state that purported notices dated January 14, 1986 and all purported proceedings relating thereto are all wholly illegal and invalid. 5. The petitioners contend that under s.400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 the Municipal Commissioner has the power to make appropriate orders in respect of unauthorised constructions. Under Ss. 48(3)(b) of the said Act the Commissioner has the power to delegate such powers to any other officer and by virtue of that power the Commissioner has delegated such power to Special Officers (Building) and under such delegated authority the Special Officers (Building) have been disposing of all such demolition cases. The demolition case in question has thus been disposed of by the Special Officer (Buildings) Shri G.P. Ghosh by the order dated 15th November, 1984 and the Municipal Commissioner has no power whatsoever to review or revise the order passed by the respondent no. The demolition case in question has thus been disposed of by the Special Officer (Buildings) Shri G.P. Ghosh by the order dated 15th November, 1984 and the Municipal Commissioner has no power whatsoever to review or revise the order passed by the respondent no. 7, G.P. Ghosh in exercise of its quasi judicial power and the respondent Municipal Corporation or any other officer of the respondent no. 1 Calcutta Municipal Corporation has no power re-hear the demolition case and to ignore the order passed by the respondent no. 7. Hence, this writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs. 6. Even though notices have been duly served upon all the respondents none has filed any affidavit-in-opposition. After the case has been listed for hearing, I have directed the learned Advocate for the petitioners to serve a fresh notice on the respondents intimating them that the matter has been listed for hearing and to appear in the proceeding. But unfortunately none appeared to contest. Ultimately I requested Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, Advocate who had appeared in another case of the respondent no. 1 to take instructions from the respondents and if necessary, to contest the matter as I have felt that as it arises out of demolition of alleged unauthorised constructions made by the petitioners the Corporation authorities should express their views in the matter. Mr. Ghosh has after seeking a few adjournments appeared to contest the writ petition on behalf of the respondents. He contends that it is not correct to say that the order of the Special Officer (Building) has been duly communicated to the petitioners, that the order in the concerned demolition case has not yet been published and the Commissioner has not yet issued any order to publish the order in the impugned demolition case. It is also contended that the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation has also the authority to exercise its power of supervision over the demolition case hearing of which has been delegated to its delegate in the case and in exercise of such authority conferred by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Commissioner has issued the notices to the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioners have the obligation to appear before the Commissioner in connection with the hearing with the demolition case before the Commissioner and it is not a case in which the Respondent Commissioner has no authority to issue notices. 1 and 2 and the petitioners have the obligation to appear before the Commissioner in connection with the hearing with the demolition case before the Commissioner and it is not a case in which the Respondent Commissioner has no authority to issue notices. It is also contended that the Commissioner in order to dispose of the demolition case in question has issued the notices and the petitioners have the obligation to appear before the Commissioner and cannot challenge the validity of the notices dated 14th January 1986. 7. As regards the first question raised by the learned Advocate for the respondents, I am of the view that there is substance in this contention that this order has not been formally communicated. The petitioners claim that an uncertified copy of the order dated 15th November 1984, has been given to their representative, but there is no formal communication of the order dated 15th November 1984. For the purpose of determining as to whether the impugned notices are valid or not the communication or non-communication of the order passed by the Special Officer (Building) is not very material. Whether the authority would communicate the order or not is exclusively the decision of the Corporation authority. But the main question that requires decision is to as to whether the Commissioner of Corporation has the legal authority to issue the notices Annexure 'C'. 8. The notices annexure 'C' are the two notices dated 15.1.1986 issued to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively by the Deputy City Architect, Calcutta Corporation. By those notices the petitioners were directed to appear on 17th January 1986 at 10-30 a.m. in the Chamber of the Municipal Commissioner of Calcutta Municipal Corporation at the hearing of the demolition case in respect of the premises no. 1 Sambhu Mullick Lane and the petitioners were requested to attend the said hearing with the relevant documents, if any. Immediately on receiving those notices, the petitioners through their learned Advocate dated 16.1.1987 wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioner that the demolition case in respect of the premises no. 1 Sambhu Mullick Lane had already been disposed by Sri G.P. Ghosh, Special Officer (Buildings) by the order dated 15.11.1984 and that in spite of several demands the order passed in the above matter had not been communicated. It has also been mentioned that in the Matter no. 1 Sambhu Mullick Lane had already been disposed by Sri G.P. Ghosh, Special Officer (Buildings) by the order dated 15.11.1984 and that in spite of several demands the order passed in the above matter had not been communicated. It has also been mentioned that in the Matter no. 1149 of 1985 (Sovana Construction v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.) Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. by the order dated 13.1.1986 held, inter alia, that the Municipal Commissioner has no power to review an order passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) in exercise of his quasi judicial powers unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In that letter, a request was also made to communicate the order passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) and also to recall the notices issued to the petitioners. However, it is not known as to whether the Commissioner has acceded to their prayer but then on 30.1.1986 the present writ petition has been filed praying for granting (quashing?) the impugned notices and proceedings mentioned by the Commissioner and/or other consequential reliefs. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Commissioner has admittedly delegated his power under s. 400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 namely, the power of order demolition and stoppage of construction of buildings alleged to be in contravention of any of the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder to the Special Officers (Buildings), that the Special Officer (Building), Sri G.P. Ghosh in exercise of such delegated authority issued the notice upon the petitioners and heard and disposed of the demolition case. It is also submitted that Mr. Ghosh also intimated by his letter dated 23.2.1985 in reply to the petitioners letter dated 18.2.1985 that he has already disposed of the case from his end on 15.11.1984 and advised then to see the City Architect in the matter of necessary service of the order by him. Copy of this reply is part of annexure "A". So, from the letter it is clear that the Special Officer (Building) being the delegate of the Municipal Commissioner has already passed final order in the case on 15.11.1984. 10. Copy of this reply is part of annexure "A". So, from the letter it is clear that the Special Officer (Building) being the delegate of the Municipal Commissioner has already passed final order in the case on 15.11.1984. 10. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the order of the Special Officer (Building) has not been formally communicated to the petitioners and has not therefore attained the finality and the Commissioner can hear the matter again and issue the notices to the petitioners for the said purpose. It is also submitted that the power has been delegated no doubt that it is delegated subject to general control and supervision of the Commissioner and under such power of supervision and control, the Commissioner can hear the matter again so that the demolition case can be disposed of finally. 11. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the impugned order of demolition passed by Sri G.P. Ghosh on 15.11.1984 is in exercise of its quasi-judicial powers and even if the Commissioner delegated the authority to the Special Officer (Building) subject to general control and supervision, yet, this would not clothe the Commissioner with the jurisdiction to review the order in the demolition case passed in the quasi-judicial exercise of the power of the delegate. It is contended that the administrative power delegated to the delegate can be supervised by the authority delegating the power but not the quasi-judicial power. In Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta v. Sailendra Nath Banerjee reported in 1977(2) Cal. LJ page 505, this Court while considering the similar provisions contained s. 414 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 has observed that the Commissioner, Calcutta Corporation under s. 414 has the discretion to demolish any unauthorised construction or not to demolish it but such discretion should be exercised judicially. So, there is no doubt that the power exercised by the Commissioner or his delegate under s. 414 of the Old Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 or under new s. 400 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act is the discretionary power exercised quasi-judicially. Therefore, whatever order has been passed by Shri G.P. Ghosh dated 15.11.1984 is in exercise of quasi-judicial function. Even though the Corporation authority has not yet formally communicated the order of the demolition ease passed by Mr. G.P. Ghosh. Special Officer (Building) to the petitioners, yet, the letter of Mr. Therefore, whatever order has been passed by Shri G.P. Ghosh dated 15.11.1984 is in exercise of quasi-judicial function. Even though the Corporation authority has not yet formally communicated the order of the demolition ease passed by Mr. G.P. Ghosh. Special Officer (Building) to the petitioners, yet, the letter of Mr. G.P. Ghosh addressed to the present petitioners already referred to by me in the above clearly shows that he informed the petitioners that he had already passed the order in the demolition case no. 15.11.1984. So by virtue of the delegated authority Mr. G.P. Ghosh, Special Officer (Building) has already passed the order in the demolition case in question. Even if it be conceded that the order has not yet been communicated, the Commissioner cannot again re-hear the matter. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the Commissioner cannot re-hear the case and this would amount to review which this Act has not aurhorised him to do. 12. On behalf of the petitioners, two decisions of the Supreme Court have been cited to urge that even when the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation delegates his judicial function to his delegate and such delegate has to exercise the delegated function subject to Commissioner's control and to his revision, such power of control and revision apply only to administrative function and not to judicial function. In AIR 1965 SC page 1486 (Bombay Municipal Corporation. v. Dhandu) the Supreme Court while considering the similar provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act has clearly held that in the case of judicial functions delegated to a delegate by the Commissioner, when the delegation Order stated that his functions were delegated subject to his control and supervision it did not mean that he reserved to himself the right to intervene to impose his own decision upon his delegate, that what those words meant that the Commissioner could control the exercise administratively as to the kinds of cases in which the delegate could take action or the period or time during which the power might be exercised and so on and so forth, and in other words, the administrative side of the delegate's duties was to be the subject of control and revision, but not the essential power to decide whether to take action or not in a particular case. 13. 13. In another decision, the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1503 Roopchand v. State of Punjab has held that when the power to hear appeal given to State Government under s. 21(4) of East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 has been delegated to the officer, the order made by such officer cannot be revised by the State Government under s. 42 of the said Act and the said order of the State Government is a nullity. 14. In this particular case, after the delegate had disposed of the demolition case by the order dated 15.11.1984 the Commissioner wanted to have the matter heard by himself and for that purpose issued notices upon the present petitioners fixing a date for hearing and calling upon them to produce all the relevant documents. In my view, this is to review or revise the order passed by Mr. G.P. Ghosh dated 15.11.1984 by the Commissioner but such order of the delegate having been passed in exercise of its quasi-judicial function cannot be revised or reviewed by the Commissioner. When the intention of the Commissioner by issuing the notices annexure 'C' to the writ petition clearly is to exercise the power of review or revision of the order passed by his delegate the said notices are liable to be quashed because the Commissioner does not have any such power to review or revise such order under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980. The impugned notice should therefore be quashed. 15. In the result, the writ petition be allowed. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus and Prohibition as prayed for in clauses (a) and (c) in the prayer petition of the writ petition be issued accordingly. Mr. Ghosh submits that even though he has not filed any affidavit in opposition, he does not admit the allegations contained in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment. Impugned notice quashed.