Judgment : The petitioners are the owners of flat No. 10-D situated on the 10th floor of Shakespeare court at premises No.21/A Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said flat). The petitioners are Private Ltd. Companies carrying on their respective business in the said flat by using single entrance leading to 10th floor’s common passage/corridor which leads to staircase and lift. Though the petitioners are in occupation of their separate demarcated portion within the said flat but they are unable to physically divide the said flat as per their share therein as the said flat has a single entrance leading to the common corridor on the 10th floor of the said building. For convenient use of the respective demarcated portions of the said flat, the petitioners have created a supplementary entrance by braking open a part of the wall and fixing a wooden door and collapsible gate therein for having direct access to the portion of the said flat which is exclusively allotted to one of the petitioners and leaving the other one for the exclusive ingress and egress of the other petitioner to his allotment, through the common corridor of the 10th floor of the said building. The respondent No. 4 which is an association of the flat owners of the said building, objected to the creation of such separate entrance in the said flat, as according to them, if the petitioners are permitted to create such a separate entrance for supplementary ingress and egress then if the other flat owners seek similar permission to create such separate supplementary entrance in their respective flats, then such permission cannot be denied and in that event the building cannot be maintained in the manner as it is required to be maintained as per the sanctioned plan of the said building. Since the petitioners could not be resisted from creating such an independent supplementary entrance in the said flat, a writ petition was earlier filed by the Private respondent No. 4 against the petitioners herein and the Corporation of Calcutta so that the entrance door which was fixed for creation of supplementary access in the said flat is removed and the braking open portion is restored to its original condition. Pursuant to the directions passed in the said writ petition from time to time, the said flat was inspected repeatedly by the Municipal Authority. Pursuant to the directions passed in the said writ petition from time to time, the said flat was inspected repeatedly by the Municipal Authority. The first report which was submitted by the Municipal Authority, after holding an inspection, recorded in its clean term therein, that the Municipal Authority had no objection for providing such a door or exit in the said flat. However the subsequent report did not agree with the first report. It was reported therein that by mistake it was mentioned in the earlier report that the department had no objection if such door or exit was created in the said flat. It is further reported therein that for creation of such separate exit, no sanction is necessary from the Municipal Authority; however formal permission for the Municipal Authority is needed. By relying upon the subsequent report, the said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by giving the following directions:- a. The petitioners herein shall immediately and forthwith shut the door in question and shall not use it till the Municipal Commissioner grants permission; b. The petitioner herein shall, after complying with the aforementioned direction, apply to the Municipal Commissioner for regularizing and setting up the aforementioned additional external door; c. In view of the report of the executive engineer, as stated, when only formal permission is necessary, the authority of the Corporation will now proceed to act in terms of the said report of the executive engineer and will proceed to regularize the opening of such external door by granting permission. The authority was directed to take the said decision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein and the Private respondent No. 4 herein within a period of 10 weeks from the date of submission of an application for permission by the private respondent. Pursuant to the said order passed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner herein submitted an application seeking permission of the Municipal Authority to retain the said additional external door in the said flat. Pursuant to the said order passed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner herein submitted an application seeking permission of the Municipal Authority to retain the said additional external door in the said flat. The Municipal Authority, after hearing the petitioner and private respondent refused to grant such permission to the petitioner by its order dated 10th June 2009 by holding inter alia that if such permission is granted, and the additional external door is allowed to be retained there, then the flat in question cannot be maintained in the manner as it is required to be maintained as per the building sanctioned plan. It was further observed therein that in case one flat owner is allowed to have separate door for supplementary ingress and egress then how can KMC refuse to grant such permission to other flat owners if they apply for creating of separate entrance door for their egress and ingress in their flats, and in this process the sanctioned plan of the premises will lose its sanctity. The petitioner herein were thus directed to immediately close the said door and restore the position as per the sanctioned plan within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner herein. Let me consider as to how far the concerned authority was justified in refusing to grant such permission to the petitioner in the facts of the instant case. Legality of the impugned order is to be tested by keeping in mind the second inspection report wherein the Municipal Authority itself reported that for such alteration, no sanction form the Municipal Authority, is necessary. It was further reported therein that only formal permission from the Municipal Authority is necessary for such alteration. No building rule and/or any guide line is prescribed under the Municipal Act for grant for such permission or such alteration. At least nothing could be shown to me that any guideline and/or building rule is prescribed under the statute for grant of such permission for such alteration by the Municipal Authority. Even the Municipal Authority has not pointed out, in the impugned order as to which provision of the Building Rule and/or any guide line stood in the way of regularizing such alteration. Even the Municipal Authority has not pointed out, in the impugned order as to which provision of the Building Rule and/or any guide line stood in the way of regularizing such alteration. It was also not pointed out in the impugned order as to which provision of the Building Rule and/or any guide line will be infringed if such permissions is granted and/or alteration is regularized. Any alteration in the building; however negligible it may be, will certainly amount to deviation from the sanctioned plan. At the same time, it is not the case of the Municipal Authority that no alteration under any circumstances, is permissible. Now, therefore, in the absence of any rule and/or guide line for grant of permission for such alteration, in my view, the authority concerned is only required to consider:- (i) as to whether by such alteration the structural strength of the building will be reduced and/or affected or not; and (ii) further as to whether in case such alteration is allowed, such alteration will create any inconvenience to the other flat owners and/or occupiers of the said building. So far as the first criteria is concerned, this court finds that it is no body’s case that if such alteration is allowed, such alteration will affect the structural strength of the building. If that be so then in my view, the permission which was sought for by the petitioner, cannot be refused on this first ground. Let me now consider as to whether permission can be refused on the second ground as mentioned above. Here is the case where this court finds that a wooden door was fixed by the petitioner by breaking open a part of the outer wall of the said flat, without encroaching any part of the common passage and/or corridor in the said floor and without causing any obstruction to the other occupants of the said floor in exercise of their right of passage through the said common corridor on the said floor. As such when the right of passage of the other occupiers of the said floor is not affected by creation of an additional external door in the flat in question, the permission which was sought for by the petitioners cannot be refused. As such when the right of passage of the other occupiers of the said floor is not affected by creation of an additional external door in the flat in question, the permission which was sought for by the petitioners cannot be refused. However, the photographs of the portion of the passage wherein the collapsible gate is fixed in front of the wooden door which is submitted before this court, clearly demonstrates that said collapsible gate was fixed beyond the external wall of the said flat by covering a part of the common passage. Mr. Ghosh Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners also admitted after taking instructions from his client that a very negligible part of the common passage was encroached by fixation of such collapsible gate in front of the wooden door. In my view if any encroachment is there, however, negligible it may be, such encroachment on the common corridor will certainly affect the right of passage of the other occupiers of the said flat, over the said common corridor. As such this court is of the view that the collapsible gate which is fixed in front of the wooden door cannot be allowed to be retained therein. This part of the illegalities on the part of the petitioners cannot be regularized by grant of post facto permission. Accordingly, this court disposes of this writ petition by directing the Municipal authority to regularize the opening of such an external entrance and/or fixation of the wooden door therein, by granting permission to the petitioners to retain the wooden door only and also by directing the petitioners to remove the collapsible gate fixed in front of the said wooden door by encroaching a part of the common corridor maintained for common use by the occupiers of the said building. Thus, the petitioners are directed to remove the said collapsible gate, within two weeks from date and the Municipal Authority is directed to complete the entire exercise for regularizing the opening of a supplementary external entrance to the said flat, in terms of the direction as given above, within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petitions is thus, disposed of. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as xpeditiously as possible.