JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The writ petitioner complains of unauthorised construction at premises no.32 Manquis Street, Kolkata - 700016. When the writ petition was moved by an order dated September 25, 2014, this Court required the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to file a report regarding the subject matter of the writ petition by the adjourned date. Directions for affidavits were given. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has used an affidavit 2. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that, a portion of the structure occupied by the respondent nos.6 to 9 at premises no.32 Manquis Street, Kolkata - 700016 is unauthorised. They were issued in a notice under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 previously. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that, since the subsequent report of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation finds a portion of the construction occupied by the respondent nos.6 to 9 to be unauthorised, suitable steps for demolition of such unauthorised construction be initiated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation within a time frame that may be specified by the Court. The suit filed by the private respondents and the orders passed therein has nothing to do with the merits of present petition. 3. Private respondent nos.6 to 9 are represented. It is submitted on their behalf that, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation had submitted its report pursuant to the order dated September 25, 2014. In such report, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation did not find any portion of the area under occupation by the respondent nos.6 to 9 to be unauthorised. It is submitted that, if the Kolkata Municipal Corporation proceeds on the basis of the second report, then also, the private respondent should be allowed to represent their case before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with regard to the allegation of unauthorised construction levelled against them. The pendency of the civil suit should be considered. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 5. The writ petitioner is the owner of the premises no. 32 Manquis Street, Kolkata - 700016. The writ petitioner complains that, the respondent no.6 to 9 have made unauthorised construction at the portion of the premises which they occupy. 6. The parties have pointed out that, there are three suits pending between the tenants of the premises concerned and the writ petitioner herein. 32 Manquis Street, Kolkata - 700016. The writ petitioner complains that, the respondent no.6 to 9 have made unauthorised construction at the portion of the premises which they occupy. 6. The parties have pointed out that, there are three suits pending between the tenants of the premises concerned and the writ petitioner herein. In respect of the suit filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 9 herein is concerned, there is an order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. A copy of the plaint of the suit filed by the respondent nos.6 to 9 against the writ petitioner has been handed over in Court. I find that, the respondent nos.6 to 9 have sought a decree of declaration as to their tenancy. Such declaration even if obtained by the respondent nos.6 to 9, will not allow the respondent nos.6 to 9 either to make unauthorised construction at the area under their occupation or to retain any unauthorised construction made therein. I find that, the pending suit does not impede the disposal of the writ petition in any manner whatsoever. I however, make it clear that, I have not pronounced on the merits of the claim in the rival parties in the pending suit. 7. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation was required to submit a report by the order dated September 29, 2014. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation Municipal has filed an affidavit relying on a report dated December 5, 2014. In such report it has been stated that, there was an earlier sanction plan in respect of the concerned premises and that the validity of such sanction plan has expired. The report goes on to say that, no new construction was found at site. The report however, did not address the issue raised in the writ petition. 8. In such circumstances, I required the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to submit a fresh report by my order dated January 13, 2015. 9. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has submitted a second report dated January 22, 2015. In the second report the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has stated that, a notice under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 being notice no. 4385 dated February 5, 1991 was issued against Abdul Khaleque. The respondent nos.6 to 9 are the children of Abdul Khaleque, since deceased. In the second report the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has stated that, a notice under section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 being notice no. 4385 dated February 5, 1991 was issued against Abdul Khaleque. The respondent nos.6 to 9 are the children of Abdul Khaleque, since deceased. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation has also found that, the asbestos shed structure in the portion occupied by the respondent nos. 6 to 9 was constructed without sanction plan and without permission given by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and, therefore, such structure was not authorised. 10. In such circumstances, since a portion of the construction in the area occupied by the respondent nos.6 to 9 being found to be unauthorised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the authorities will be at liberty to proceed against the respondent nos.6 to 9 for demolition of such unauthorised construction in accordance with law. The Municipal Commissioner will proceed as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as to the private respondents in respect of unauthorised construction alleged to be made by the respondent nos.6 to 9 and will pass a reasoned order thereon preferably six weeks from the date of communication of this order on the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner is requested to either hear and decide the issue himself or to delegate the same to an appropriate Officer of his choice. In the event the Municipal Commissioner choose to appoint a competent officer to decide on the issue, the Municipal Commissioner must do so within two weeks of the date of communication of this order on him. 11. With the aforesaid directions, W.P. No. 881 of 2014 is disposed of. No order as to costs.