N. K. BATABYAL, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner inherited the property being premises No. 8c, Srimanta De Lane, Calcutta-12 along with others after the death of his father and duly mutated the names of the incoming heirs in the books and Registers of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It is stated that sometime in the Bengali year 1353 the Deity of Sri Sri Sati Mata was installed in the premises on the top floor of the said premises. The room or Takur Ghar had a roof of tiles and asbestos shed and the same was repaired from time to time. A permanent roof was constructed for the said Takur Ghar sometime in 1985. In or about 1989, some persons came to the premises in question representing themselves as the Inspecting Staff of Calcutta Municipal Corporation and on their instructions the room was shown to them. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a Notice under S. 400 of the C. M. C. Act, 1980. A copy of the said notice is annexed with the writ petition and marked Annexure- "c". The petitioner after enquiry at the office of the C. M. C. finally appeared before the Officer on Special Duty (Building) who did not offer any opportunity to make any representation in writing nor gave any copy of the inspection report. , The petitioner simply stated before him that the Temple was there for a long time but the roof was recently constructed. No enquiry was made as to the age of the wall or the nature of construction of the roof but the said Special Officer ordered demolition of the roof and the walls by his order dated 2/03/1990. It was subsequently approved by the Municipal Commissioner without further opportunity being given to the petitioner. A copy of the said order has been annexed to the writ petition and marked Annexure- "d". The said order of demolition was passed without giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Learned Municipal Building Tribunal, respondent No. 3 challenging the said order of demolition marked Annexure- "d" and the said appeal being Appeal No. 76 / 909l was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 26/09/1994. A copy of the said impugned judgment has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure- "f". A copy of the said impugned judgment has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure- "f". It was alleged, inter alia, by the appellants that the order was passed by the Special Officer being biased at the instance of the Deputy City Architect, the City Architect and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation but the Learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the inspection report and found that the construction was made in violation of the Municipal Building Rules and therefore it did not entertain the appeal. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the Municipal Building Tribunal the writ petitioner has come before this Court alleging that the impugned demolition order is violative of the principles of natural justice and that the impugned order has been passed without any material on records and that the order is otherwise bad, illegal and arbitrary being passed in colourable exercise of powers in violation of natural justice principles. ( 3 ) THE writ application is hotly contested. ( 4 ) THE Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the following portion of paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment:-"7. The Learned Advocate for the appellant at the first round submits that the order in question is not a free outcome of the judicial mild of respondent No. 1 as some other officials of C. M. C. , having no jurisdiction in the matter, influenced the mind of the respondent No. 1 by their notes in writing insisting upon an order directing demolition of the impugned construction. On perusal of the record of the demolition case concerned, it is found that the Dy. C. A. , C. A. and Dy. M. C. (B) by their separate endorsements dated 17-3-90, 27-3-90 and 5-4-90 insisted on passing an order of demolition on approval of recommendation of Officer on Special Duty (B) in order dated 2-3-90. Though there is no specific mention in the order impugned in this appeal, that the respondent No. 1 passed the order in question being influenced by any official of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the appellant reasonably apprehends influence of some officials of C. M. C. on the respondent No. 1. The well known legal maxim is that justice should not only be done but should also be shown to have been done. The well known legal maxim is that justice should not only be done but should also be shown to have been done. In the present case, the apprehension of the appellant is reasonable in view of the endorsements of Dy. C. M. , C. A, and Dy. M. C. in writing. Hence, the contention of the appellant finds much merit in this connection and the order is not tenable in law and is liable to be set aside. " ( 5 ) THE Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the final paragraph of the impugned judgment which runs as follows : ->"11. Hence it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest and the order impugned in this appeal is set aside. It is further ordered that the impugned construction be demolished by the appellant at his own risk and cost within a month from this date, failing which the respondent No. 1, Municipal Commissioner shall be at liberty to take necessary action according to law, for the demolition and the appellant shall be liable for payment of costs etc. incurred therefor". ( 6 ) IT has been submitted by the Learned advocate for the writ petitioner that when the Learned Tribunal came to the finding that the impugned order cannot stand thereafter he had no alternative but to allow the appeal after setting aside the impugned order. What the Ld. Tribunal had done is that after holding that the impugned order was not tenable in law, it went into the question of fact whether the structure in question was offending any Municipal Provisions on the materials on record. No doubt the Appellate Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body which can go into both the question of fact and law. But in this case the Appellate Tribunal went into the question of fact usurping the function of the appropriate authority of the first tier and thus effectively depriving the writ petitioner of the Appellate Forum of facts and law. If the finding of the Officer on Special Duty (B) were vitiated by a biased mind, the proper course to follow was to send back the matter to the proper authority for consideration of the matter afresh uninfluenced by any one. If the finding of the Officer on Special Duty (B) were vitiated by a biased mind, the proper course to follow was to send back the matter to the proper authority for consideration of the matter afresh uninfluenced by any one. Section 400 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act lays down only that a person aggrieved by an order of the Municipal Commissioner made under sub-section (I) of S. 400 may within a stipulated period from the date of the order prefer an appeal against the order to the Municipal Building Tribunal appointed under S. 415 of the said Act. In the body of the impugned judgment, S. 400 (3) of the said Act has been referred, to indicate that the Tribunal has power to pass an order for demolition of unauthorised work. It is undoubtedly true as discussed above that the Municipal Building Tribunal as an Appellate Authority can go into both the questions of fact and law but what the Municipal Building Tribunal as Appellate Authority cannot do is that it cannot deprive a party of an Appellate Forum by itself taking up the duty of the first tier of authority when according to its own findings there was in fact no finding at all as there was absence of proper application of an unbiased mind into the facts of the case. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, I hold that the Ld. Tribunal did not properly apply its mind to the case and therefore the writ application succeeds. It is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed but the Corporation Authority will be at liberty to proceed according to law afresh. Application allowed.