JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is technically defective so far as Rule 8B and Rule 9 of the Rules of this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned. 2. Nonetheless the matter is taken up for hearing on merits because the learned advocate who is on record and is a senior member of the Bar assures me that it will not happen again. He is led by Learned Counsel. 3. The writ petitioner is a co-owner of a certain property along with the non-State Respondents No. 11 to 25. This property was contracted to be developed through the non-State Respondents No. 8 to 10. As is usual, under such circumstances, all the co-owners had executed the power of attorney in favour of the non-State Respondent No.8 to 10. The power of attorney was executed on November 29, 2010. A plan for building was sanctioned by the Respondent Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the basis of such power of attorney. Such plan was sanctioned on June 14, 2011 pursuant to amalgamation of the premises. At paragraph 23, the writ petitioner has alleged that after the execution of the power of attorney two of the co-owners died. The dates of their deaths have not been mentioned in the writ petition and no death certificate has been annexed to the writ petition. The power of attorney was alleged to have been cancelled by the writ petitioner on June 10, 2013 by a registered Instrument and such revocation was duly notified on July 1, 2013 in an English daily and a vernacular daily newspaper, having wide circulation in Kolkata. 4. Therefore, it is the case of the writ petitioner that despite sanction of the building plan on the basis of the power of attorney aforesaid, two of the executants/donors of the power of attorney, being co-owners, died, and the said power of attorney was no longer valid so far as the right of the non-State Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 to represent all the co-owners of the premises is concerned. 5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that there was deviation from the sanctioned building plan and for this the building constructed at the said premises was liable to be demolished. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Swapan Mitra along with Mr. 8 to 10 to represent all the co-owners of the premises is concerned. 5. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that there was deviation from the sanctioned building plan and for this the building constructed at the said premises was liable to be demolished. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Swapan Mitra along with Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, learned advocates appearing for the non-State respondent strenuously submit that the death of one of the co-owners who has a miniscule percentage as a co-sharer in the entire property cannot prevent the rest of the co-owners from taking steps to acquire their property. He submits that had the property been partitioned by metes and bounds, the said writ petitioner would not have had more than 70 to 80 square meters out of the premises measuring 2 cottahs and 1 chittak. He further submits that so far as the death of the two co-owners are concerned they would have no effect on the right of all the co-owners to continue to represent themselves through the private respondents, if necessary, by giving a separate letter which would allow them to be represented before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the limited extent of praying for regularization which he submits is covered under Rule 28 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, instead of demolition of the building sought by the writ petitioner in terms of Section 400 sub-Section (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that the regularization was made on merits instead of going on technicalities considering that the majority of the co-sharers were willing to be represented by the promoters and the promoters were the person responsible for carrying out the construction. He also submits that the amount of deviation was only 80 square feet on the ground floor and had the same been part of the plan submitted for sanction, the law would have permitted the plan to be sanctioned with such deviation. He also submits that the Respondent Corporation allowed the change of user in its discretion since it was a change which did not affect the structural stability of the building. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out in reply that this is a case which is covered by the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He also submits that the Respondent Corporation allowed the change of user in its discretion since it was a change which did not affect the structural stability of the building. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out in reply that this is a case which is covered by the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He submits that in a case like this, where regularization is sought for by a promoter after the construction is completed it cannot be regularized under Rule 28 of the concerned Building Rules of the Respondent No.1 and besides there is no specific provision for allowing regularization of change of user of the type of building as originally sanctioned, after construction is completed. He would submit, in reply, that the Respondent corporation being a creature of the statute, is to be held to be prohibited from doing that which is not expressly allowed by or under the statute from which it derives its authority. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the limited ground on which I propose to interfere with the order impugned at page 191 of the writ petition, perhaps consideration of the question of whether on merits regularization was made in proper exercise of discretion will not be necessary. 10. On a query being made to the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they all admit that the order impugned by the writ petitioner does not show that the question raised by the writ petitioner, as to whether the respondents No.8 to 10 were competent to represent all the co-owners in the demolition case on the basis of a power of attorney executed by the co-owners, two of whom had died and one of whom had cancelled the power of attorney to the extent of his share, since execution of such power of attorney, was ever considered by the Special Officer Building of the Respondent Corporation. Ex facie, the order does not show either the formulation of the question nor any decision on the issue. 11. Therefore, I find that the respondent Authority including the Special Officer, Building has not considered the relevant fact which was urged before it. 12. The fact which was urged before it was also a jurisdictional fact as to whether Mr. Mitra's client had the authority to represent of all the co-owners. 11. Therefore, I find that the respondent Authority including the Special Officer, Building has not considered the relevant fact which was urged before it. 12. The fact which was urged before it was also a jurisdictional fact as to whether Mr. Mitra's client had the authority to represent of all the co-owners. This is an essential jurisdictional fact on which the assumption of jurisdiction by the Special Officer, Building, in the matter of hearing the co-owners through such promoters for the purpose of regularization, depends. 13. When such an essential jurisdictional fact which is also a relevant fact for deciding which there are sufficient materials on record, is urged before the authority hearing the matter, and he does not consider it at all, the decision-making process not only suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness, but also from failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Special Officer, Building by law. He ought to have, before exercising his discretion, first formulated the said essential jurisdictional fact and then proceeded to decide it. He did neither. 14. Therefore, whatever he decided on merits becomes wholly without jurisdiction and the Court is not required to subject it to a scrutiny deeper than what I have done. 15. It appears that after the Special Officer Building rejected the plea of the writ petitioners on June 6, 2014 without deciding the above jurisdictional question, the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration that the power of attorney dated November 29, 2010 has become infructuous, before a competent civil court. Such suit being Title Suit No.372 of 2014 is pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah. 16. Since Mr. Mitra, learned advocate, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, does not wish to use any affidavit and neither does Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the Corporation, but neither admits the allegations and since the matter is being decided on a question of law as appears from the face of the impugned order, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall not be deemed to be admitted. The Pro Forma respondents are not represented despite notice. 17. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the Corporation, but neither admits the allegations and since the matter is being decided on a question of law as appears from the face of the impugned order, the allegations contained in the writ petition shall not be deemed to be admitted. The Pro Forma respondents are not represented despite notice. 17. On the basis of what appears from the face of the order and the submission made from the Bar in respect of such failure to decide an essential jurisdictional fact, I consider it fit and proper to set aside the order without going into the merits, only on the above jurisdictional point and send it back to the learned Special Officer, Building on the following terms: 1. Such Special Officer shall first consider and determine the jurisdictional question as to whether the respondents No.8 to 10 have the authority on the basis of the power of attorney dated November 29, 2010 to represent all the co-owners in the matter of the prayer for regularization of the construction and its change of user in the facts alleged in the writ petition relating to death of two of the executants and cancellation by a minority shareholder of the power of attorney. 1. To take on record further documents, if produced by any of the parties, which would show that the prayer for regularization can be made on behalf of all the co-owners or on behalf of a substantial number of co-owners by the respondent Nos. 8 to 10. 1. Whether regularization can at all be allowed in respect of the deviations and change of user as sought, after the construction of the building has been completed though no completion certificate has been issued? 18. I make it clear that the consideration and determination of the jurisdictional fact as in clauses 1 and 2 above aforesaid by the Special Officer Building, will be limited to the right of the respondents No. 8 to 10 to represent all the co-owners before it in the hearing aforesaid on the basis of such power of attorney and/or any other document as may be produced before it and not any other purpose. The Corporation shall not be entitled to refuse to decide the question of regularization merely on the ground that the civil suit is pending. 19. The Corporation shall not be entitled to refuse to decide the question of regularization merely on the ground that the civil suit is pending. 19. The entire exercise of re-consideration shall be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of the order without fail. I make this time limit mandatory and peremptory because during this period there shall be an interim order to the effect that the Respondents No. 8 to 10 promoters will not be entitled to part with the possession of the property or create any third party interest or raise any money as consideration for sale of flats or spaces therein and/or put the co-owners including the writ petitioner and the pro forma respondents of any of them in possession of their allocation and hence there shall be no extension made of this period and the Special Officer must complete this exercise within the above stipulated time. The parties should co-operate in the matter. 20. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the civil suit which is pending between the parties or any question on the merits of the impugned order raised before me. 21. WP 3472(W) of 2015 is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.