Judgment : The Court: Advocate for Howrah Municipal Corporation has submitted under instructions that the officials inspecting the premises have not found anything to say that the tenth respondent was erecting any authorized constructions. Admittedly, the premises were not inspected in presence of the petitioner on whose allegations HMC they were inspected. It is not necessary for this Court to decide whether the tenth respondent was or is erecting any unauthorized constructions. It was the duty of the authority concerned of HMC to ascertain whether there was any element of truth in the petitioner’s allegations. Advocate for the tenth respondent has disputed the correctness of the allegations. In view of the above-noted situation, I dispose of the WP ordering as follows. The authority concerned of HMC shall take steps for inspection of the premises in presence of the petitioner and the tenth respondent and inform all concerned, within a fortnight from the date this order is served, about the results of the inspection and steps, if any, proposed to be taken. No costs.