ORAL ORDER Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8393 of 2011. The delay of 77 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1878 of 2011 & Interlocutory Application No. 8392 of 2011. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 17589 of 2009, the respondents Patna Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner and the Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. The matter at dispute is the demolition of a house bearing Holding No. 115/148/134 Part, Circle No. 142, Municipal Plot No. 250, situated at Gopinath Mandir Ki Gali, Machharhatta, Patna City, P.S. Khajekalan, District – Patna. 4. It appears that the respondent nos. 4 & 5, claiming to be the owners of the disputed house, informed the Corporation that the house was dilapidated and obtained order of demolition. Armed with the order of demolition issued by the Corporation, the respondent nos. 4 & 5 demolished the house in question. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no. 1 approached this Court in CWJC No. 17589 of 2009 against the Corporation and the owners of the house. The petitioner claimed that he was in actual occupation of the disputed house. The disputed house was not dilapidated but the owners of the house with a view to evicting the writ petitioner obtained the order of demolition in collusion with the officers of the Corporation and illegally dispossessed the writ petitioner and damaged his properties. 6. The learned single Judge has accepted the submissions of the writ petitioner and has directed the owners of the house to reconstruct the house. Insofar as the Corporation is concerned, the learned single Judge has held that the action of the Corporation in ordering demolition of the disputed house was not in consonance with Section 336 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Act”). The learned single Judge has also held that the order of demolition was issued by the officials of the Corporation in collusion with the owners. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has directed to pay cost of rupees One lakh to the petitioner. The learned single Judge has also held that the order of demolition was issued by the officials of the Corporation in collusion with the owners. In view of the said finding, the learned single Judge has directed to pay cost of rupees One lakh to the petitioner. The learned single Judge has further directed an enquiry to be made in respect of the officers involved in the incident and to recover the amount of cost from such erring officers. 7. Feeling aggrieved to the extent the learned single Judge has held that the action of the Corporation was not in consonance with Section 336 of the 2007 Act and has directed to the Corporation to pay cost of rupees One lakh and has directed to make an enquiry and recover the amount of cost from the erring officers, the Corporation has preferred this Appeal. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the Corporation. He has strenuously urged that the Corporation had acted in accordance with Section 336 of the 2007 Act and on the basis of the materials available with it. He has taken us through the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents on record. He has submitted that the Corporation had the materials with it in terms of an order made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Patna City and the report of the technical expert. The Corporation has the power to order demolition forthwith in case it is necessary for the safety of the public or the inmates of the building. 9. We see no substance in any of the submissions made by Mr. Giri. Section 336 of the 2007 Act requires a notice to be given to the occupant of the building proposed to be demolished or a notice to be pasted at the conspicuous part of the building. Neither of the above-referred formalities has been complied with by the Corporation. The Corporation did not contest the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. The Corporation did not bring on record any material to buttress its defence, if any. The alleged report of the technical expert has not been brought on the record. The Corporation has not established a case for emergency demolition of the building in question either, as envisaged by sub-section (4) of Section 336 of the 2007 Act. The Corporation did not bring on record any material to buttress its defence, if any. The alleged report of the technical expert has not been brought on the record. The Corporation has not established a case for emergency demolition of the building in question either, as envisaged by sub-section (4) of Section 336 of the 2007 Act. If spot inspection were carried out by the Corporation or by its technical expert, as it is expected of it, the expert’s report would have disclosed about the person living as tenant in the building. Mr. Giri has candidly admitted that the expert’s report does not refer to the occupant or tenant in the disputed building. 10. We are more than satisfied that the order of demolition made by the Corporation was in collusion with the respondent nos. 4 and 5, the owners of the building. In our opinion, the learned single Judge is right in holding that the order of demolition was made by the Corporation in utter violation of the provisions contained in Section 336 of the 2007 Act. The learned single Judge is justified in imposing cost on the Corporation and in directing the Corporation to recover the amount of cost from the erring officers. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.