JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. The writ petitioners and the seventh to thirteenth respondents are the flat owners in the building comprising premises no. 1000, Jessore Road, Naskar Bagan, Kolkata - 700 055. It is named Shanti Kunj Apartments. The writ petitioners are jointly the owners of a flat situated on the 4th floor. It measures 1830 sq.ft. 2. An area of 595 sq.ft. on the ground floor is in dispute in this writ. The writ petitioners are the owners of this space. They do not say that this space is meant for car parking. The said respondents in paragraph 4 (b) of their affidavit-in-opposition categorically state that this is the car parking area. It is meant for parking three cars. The total car parking accommodates six cars. The entire car parking space is undemarcated. The complaint of these respondents about the writ petitioners is that the latter have made a permanent illegal construction to enclose this car parking space by brick and cement. Furthermore, it is alleged they have brought in wooden furniture, almirah etc. into the area and erected an iron gate, thereby converting the area into a room. It has said that they have blocked the emergency exit of the building. They are using this car parking space for commercial purposes. In other words they have changed the user of this space, meant for car parking only. The petitioners however say that they have erected a wooden partition wall, installed a wooden almirah, furniture etc. so that this space can be used by the children in the family to study and for the servant to sleep. 3. By a letter dated 12th October, 2015 eight flat owners of the building made a complaint about this to the Chairman of South Dum Dum Municipality. They went to the extent of saying that 40 lives were at stake. 4. On 16th October, 2015 the Municipality, acting on this complaint, issued a stop work notice to the husband of the first petitioner Mr. Deepak Agarwal. It said that there was an allegation against the petitioners by the said respondent, of violation of Rule 3(i) of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. Inspection was fixed on 2nd November, 2015 at 2 p.m. 5. The inspection was made on that day. Deepak Agarwal. It said that there was an allegation against the petitioners by the said respondent, of violation of Rule 3(i) of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. Inspection was fixed on 2nd November, 2015 at 2 p.m. 5. The inspection was made on that day. The letter of the Municipality dated 19th November, 2015 said that during this inspection “unauthorised construction” was found to be carried out in violation of Rule 31 (i) of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules 2007. The stop work order made on 16th October, 2015 was reiterated. Deepak Agarwal was summoned to the Municipality to meet the Assistant Engineer PWD with the sanctioned plan and other documents. On 27th October, 2015 and 27the November, 2015, letters were written on behalf of the petitioners by Deepak Agarwal to the South Dum Dum Municipality, stating that no permanent construction was being carried out. No brick or sand was being used, some temporary wooden work was being done in the space. Wooden furniture, fixture had been installed which were not illegal. On 12th January, 2016 Mr. Deepak Agarwal wrote another letter to the Chairman of the Municipality that the developer had confirmed that the writ petitioners had not done any construction work complained of. All the work was done before issuance of the completion certificate. However, the letter dated 2nd December, 2015 of the developer at page 44 of the petition referred to by the writ petitioners only says that the partition wall was constructed by them before the completion certificate. 6. On 20th January, 2016 South Dum Dum Municipality passed the impugned order. It is recorded in the order that the Chairman heard the complainant and Dipak and the first writ petitioner. They admitted before the Chairman that they had built a wooden partition wall, wooden almirah and other wooden furniture and fixture inside the garage without permission. They submitted that this modification to the structure was made to accommodate their children to study there and also to provide accommodation to their servants. By the impugned order the Chairman ruled that the car parking space would remain as such and that any obstruction created to car parking should be removed. All construction work inside the space should be demolished and removed within seven days. If they were not so removed the Municipality would take steps for their removal. 7. The writ petitioners challenge this decision. All construction work inside the space should be demolished and removed within seven days. If they were not so removed the Municipality would take steps for their removal. 7. The writ petitioners challenge this decision. 8. This writ was moved on 7th March, 2016. On the same day this court appointed two Joint Special Officers to inspect the premises and file a report whether there was any illegal construction. Status quo regarding construction and coercive action by the Municipality were ordered to be maintained. However, this court directed that no third party interest was to be created by the petitioners. 9. The Joint Special Officers reported that on 30th March, 2016, they visited the premises but no work could be done by them as the private respondents misbehaved with them. They visited the premises again on 4th April, 2016 after the court was moved and apprised of this situation. It was pointed out to them by the private respondents that the “nature and character” of the car parking space had been changed. Furthermore access to the emergency exist and the electric meter box had been blocked. The car parking space was supposed to be an open area. It was converted into a room in deviation of the building plan, it was alleged. The petitioners stated that the construction was temporary in nature. They were made of plywood. There was no addition or alteration of a permanent nature. The Iron Gate and rolling shutter were made by the developer before handing over of the said space to the petitioners. The Special Officers opined that the meter box room had not been blocked. They noted that construction had been made so as to enclose the space but the structure was temporary. They ruled out obstruction to egress from and ingress into the stair case. 10. For the purpose of passing further interim orders the report of the Joint Special Officers was considered by this court. 11. On 26th April, 2016 another interim order was passed that since the Joint Special Officers had found the structure raised by the petitioners to be temporary not requiring any sanction from the municipality, the petitioner could complete it without violating any law. The impugned order dated 20th January, 2016 was stayed. 12. The private respondents preferred an appeal from this order. The division bench presided over by the Chief Justice did not entertain the appeal. The impugned order dated 20th January, 2016 was stayed. 12. The private respondents preferred an appeal from this order. The division bench presided over by the Chief Justice did not entertain the appeal. By its order dated 16th May, 2016, it noted that the construction was found to be temporary. It could be dealt with by the trial court when the writ application came up for hearing. 13. The private respondents do not accept the report of the Joint Special Officers. 14. They say it is one sided. 15. Now, let us examine the facts and arguments of the learned counsel closely. Out of 6 contiguous car parking spaces, the petitioners are the owners of 3 contiguous car parking spaces measuring 595 sq.ft. on a part of the ground floor of the building in question. The car parking spaces were not demarcated to indicate ownership. Only the roof was covered. The three sides were open, save and except that portion of the side space where pillars to support the building stood. 16. Whilst the hearing proceeded the court gave leave to the private respondents to file a supplementary affidavit which they duly affirmed on 23rd November, 2016 and filed in court. Various photographs of that area of the building were annexed to it. Mr. Bose, senior Counsel said that these photographs would show that his clients’ contentions were correct. Even the floor of the space had been tiled. 17. Mr. Chakraborty on the other hand maintained that temporary wooden work had been carried out in the parking space to accommodate the servants of the writ petitioners and to make space for the children in the family to study. 18. Learned Counsel also stated that the impugned order of demolition had been issued by the Chairman of the Municipality. Only the Board of Councillors had the power to pass this order. The impugned order was a nullity. 19. Mr. Behani for the Municipality said that the impugned order and the directions made before that by the Chairman had to be taken as orders directing the petitioners to stop unauthorised construction, under Section 220 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. An order under Section 218 of the Act was yet to be passed. 20. It is very necessary to consider the impact of Section 218 and Section 220 of the said Act. An order under Section 218 of the Act was yet to be passed. 20. It is very necessary to consider the impact of Section 218 and Section 220 of the said Act. Section 218 (1) (a) is about unlawful erection of a building without sanctioned plan or in deviation of the sanctioned plan or the said Act and Rules. In my opinion, Section 218 (1) (a) only applies to buildings commenced or completed in violation of the sanctioned building plan or the law. It does not take into account subsequent acts after the building is completed. Sub-section (b) and (c) apply to those situations. The one that is applicable to this case is sub-section (b) which refers to a building in existence in violation of any condition. In such a situation the Board of Councillors after giving the owner reasonable opportunity of being heard can ask him to demolish the whole or the offending part and if he does not do so the demolition work has to be done by the Municipality. 21. When in the opinion of this Chairman the illegal construction has commenced and is continuing, he may stop it under Section 220(1) pending adjudication of the case under Section 218(1). 22. In my view, these sections do not fully cover the case of the respondent corporation. The case also seems to be partially covered by Section 200 of the said Act which says that no person shall, without the written permission of the Chairman change the use of the building [see Section 200 (b)]. The Board of Councillors under Section 200 (4) has the power to impose a fine against the defaulter (section 200 (4). The Chairman may to prevent aggravation of the illegal construction and stop it under Section 200(5). In addition or alternatively the route under Section 218 to demolish the structure or construction may be taken. 23. Here, the problem presents itself in the following way. There is no dispute whatsoever that the purpose for which the subject space was to be used for car parking. 24. Now, as I have said earlier, Section 218 (1) (a) (i) does not apply as the building has been erected long ago. Section 218 (1) (b) may apply if it is said that the garage space now exists in breach of the condition for user of the building. 25. 24. Now, as I have said earlier, Section 218 (1) (a) (i) does not apply as the building has been erected long ago. Section 218 (1) (b) may apply if it is said that the garage space now exists in breach of the condition for user of the building. 25. Then the Board of Councillors had the power to order demolition of the structure. Under Section 220(1), the Chairman had the power to stop construction pending adjudication under Section 218. Under Section 200(5) the Chairman had the power to stop this change of user permanently. 26. On an examination of the impugned decision dated 20th January, 2016 it appears that somehow the correct procedure has not been followed by the Municipality. The notice dated 19th November, 2015 directed Dipak Agarwal, the husband of the first petitioner not to do further construction work and to meet the Assistant Engineer PWD on 27th November, 2015. The document dated 20th January, 2016 is in the form of a minutes regarding the appearance of the parties and a direction on the petitioners to stop obstructing the car parking and removing the construction work made in the car parking space. 27. Mr. Behani is right when he says that both the documents are to be taken as issued under Section 220(1) of the said Act and should not be taken as a demolition order under Section 218 thereof. The notice dated 19th November, 2015 recited that it was being issued under Section 220(1) of the said Act. But I find that in neither of the two notices is a specific case with the required details put to the petitioners. Neither does the impugned decision dated 20th January, 2016 contain the necessary reasons. It cannot be interpreted to be a Section 218 (1) order as the correct procedure before passing such an order has not been followed. 28. After perusal of the case of the parties and the report of the Joint Special Officers it appears prima facie that the petitioners should be asked to answer a case under Section 218 (1) for making construction against the building plan and also under Section 200 for changing the use of the building. Unless this particular case is put to the petitioners the petitioners are in no position to defend themselves. Neither is the Board in a position to make a proper adjudication. 29. Unless this particular case is put to the petitioners the petitioners are in no position to defend themselves. Neither is the Board in a position to make a proper adjudication. 29. The petitioners are to be given an opportunity to answer this case and if the case is found to be true the respondent Municipality will take remedial measures. Therefore, I direct that an appropriate notice to be issued by the Board of Councillors of South Dum Dum Municipality under Section 218 (1) and Section 200 (5) of the said Act to the petitioners within 2 (two) weeks of communication of this order. After giving an opportunity to the petitioners to file a written reply, produce evidence, an opportunity to them and the private respondent to present their respective cases, the Board of Councillors of the respondent Municipality should dispose of it by a reasoned order not later than 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this order. 30. The status quo regarding the three garage spaces will be maintained by the petitioners till the final Section 218 read with Section 200 order is made by the Board of Councillors. Further construction or the fate of the construction made will abide by the decision so made. 31. This writ application is disposed of accordingly. 32. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.