JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. Appellants had approached the Hon’ble Single Judge seeking cancellation of the order of demolition bearing No. BMC/LAW/BP/58 dated 04.05.2023. 2. The case of the appellants is as follows :- 3. The property in question comprises of a plot of land for an area of 3 cottahs 15 chittaks 12 sq. ft. within Mouza: Krishnapur, presently Ward No.17 under Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (previously Ward No.26 under Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality) being Premises No. AA-59, Prafulla Kanan (West), Krishnapur, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata – 700 001. It is alleged the proforma respondents, who were the owners of the land, had entered into a development agreement with one Mantu Gupta and the latter had applied for sanctioning building plan to construct a G+4 structure. Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality sanctioned the said building plan vide sanction serial No.312/11/12 dated 19.04.2011. Subsequently the owners entered into a development agreement with the appellants and the remaining construction of the building was completed as per the said plan. 4. Alleging that the construction of the G+5 structure on the land was unauthorised, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation passed an order of demolition of the building. The demolition order came to be challenged in the present writ petition. 5. Hon’ble Single Judge held the stance of the appellants that the Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality had sanctioned the building plan in favour of one ‘Juhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd.’ and the appellants had merely completed the said construction was unfounded and dismissed the writ petition. 6. This order has been challenged by the appellants before us. 7. In the stay application, appellants had annexed a purported building plan pertaining to a G+4 structure which bears an endorsement ‘Provisionally Sanctioned, Sd/- Chairman, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality, Date 19.04.2011’ and another endorsement ‘Renewed, Sd/- Chairman, Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality, Date 22.06.2014’ to justify the validity of the construction. 8. In rebuttal to the said plea, affidavit was filed by the respondent- Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation. In their affidavit the Corporation claimed that the building plan relied by the appellants is not a genuine one. Sanction serial No.312/11/12 noted on the purported plan relates to sanction of a plan in favour of one ‘Juhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd.’ for a different plot of land in Mouza: Gopalpur. Moreover, the plan annexed and relied by the appellants pertains to a G+4 structure whereas the unauthorised construction is a G+5 structure. 9. Sanction serial No.312/11/12 noted on the purported plan relates to sanction of a plan in favour of one ‘Juhi Marketing Pvt. Ltd.’ for a different plot of land in Mouza: Gopalpur. Moreover, the plan annexed and relied by the appellants pertains to a G+4 structure whereas the unauthorised construction is a G+5 structure. 9. Under such circumstances, a coordinate Bench by order dated 02.02.2024 directed the original building plan relied upon by the appellants (copy whereof is annexed to the stay application) to be kept in the safe custody of the learned Registrar General of this court. 10. Relevant extracts of the building plan register of Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality pertaining to serial No. 312 for the year 2011-2012 filed before the court reads as follows :- 11. The notings in the aforesaid extract clearly shows sanction serial No.312 relates to sanction of a building plan on a different plot of land in Mouza: Gopalpur and granted on 01.10.2011 does not correspond to the plan relied upon by the appellants which is endorsed provisionally sanctioned on 19.04.2011. 12. Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh for the appellants also contends the plan was sanctioned on 19.04.2011 and not on 01.10.2011. 13. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court called upon the learned Advocate for the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation to produce the building plan register relating to the sanctions granted on or about 19.04.2011. The original register is produced in court and was inspected by the parties. There is no entry of grant of sanction of any building plan by the Corporation concerned on 19.04.2011. Copy of the entries made on or about 19.04.2011 by the Corporation is kept with the records. 14. These materials give rise to the irresistible conclusion that the purported sanctioned building plan relied upon by the appellants during the proceeding is a forged one and cannot justify the unauthorised G+5 structure built on the land. Demolition order passed by the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation does not call for interference. 15. We are informed a criminal case has been registered against the appellants at Baguiati Police Station being Case No.550 of 2023 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 467/472 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 295/261A/279/289 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006. Appellants were arrested and released on bail. 15. We are informed a criminal case has been registered against the appellants at Baguiati Police Station being Case No.550 of 2023 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 467/472 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 295/261A/279/289 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006. Appellants were arrested and released on bail. A charge sheet has been filed under Section 295 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 with provision for reopening the case and submission of supplementary charge sheet in the event there is support to the allegation of Sections 467/472 IPC. 16. We have gone through the brief facts of the case in the charge sheet which discloses a blatant effort on the part of the police to obfuscate facts. Investigating Officer noted in the charge sheet he had raided the office of the appellants to recover the forged building plan but failed. This shows clear non-application of mind of the Investigating Officer to the facts of the case. 17. Appellants had annexed a copy of the building plan with the stay application which was submitted before this court. Pursuant to order dated 02.02.2024 original copy was deposited with the learned Registrar General. In such view of the matter it was open to the Investigating Officer to apply before this court and take custody of the forged document for investigation. Instead of taking recourse to such step the Investigating Officer conducted a perfunctory investigation which was in the nature of an eyewash by holding raid at the office of the appellants to recover the forged plan and submit charge sheet. 18. We record our strong disapproval to the indolent conduct of the Investigating Officer. 19. Under such circumstances, we direct further investigation in the case shall be conducted by a superior police officer. Commissioner, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate shall depute an officer not lower than the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to conduct further investigation. The said officer shall take necessary steps to obtain the forged building plan deposited with the learned Registrar General and conduct further investigation in accordance with law. In course of further investigation it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the appellants. In the event appellants do not cooperate, Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to pray for cancellation of their bail in accordance with law. In course of further investigation it shall be open to the Investigating Officer to interrogate the appellants. In the event appellants do not cooperate, Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to pray for cancellation of their bail in accordance with law. Conspiracy between the appellants and/or officers/employees of erstwhile Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality in manufacturing the building plan shall also be investigated into. 20. With these directions, appeal is dismissed. 21. In view of dismissal of the appeal, connected application being CAN 1 of 2023 is also disposed of. 22. Appellants have used a forged document to justify a fake plea that the G+5 structure was constructed on the strength of a sanctioned plan. In view of their brazen attempt to mislead the court on the strength of a forged document, we impose exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the appellants which shall be deposited with the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days from date. 23. Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall submit report before this court on 03.09.2024. 24. Department is directed to communicate a copy of the order to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee for due intimation. 25. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all formalities. I agree. (Gaurang Kanth, J.)