1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/79/2026 Shri. M. Sethu Vs. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Others Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondent nos.1 & 2 Mr. S. Samanta Mr. V. Narayan … for the respondent no.3 July 31, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. The unauthorized construction as found in the mainland appears rampant within the Port Blair Municipal Council. A Coordinate Bench had recorded directions of the Division Bench of this Court to look into the locus of the writ petitioner to file the instant writ petition and also its maintainability, in view of the unconditional withdrawal of the earlier writ petition being WPA/625/2024. 2. This Court notices that the earlier writ petition in WPA/625/2024 was dismissed on 18th March, 2026 with the observation that the dismissal and vacating of the interim order would not prevent the parties from taking steps if there is a right vested in law. The said writ petition was filed by one VKM Mohammed Miskin, who is not the petitioner herein. 3. It further appears that the Administration has issued several press communications between 19th August, 2024 and 07th March, 2025 and even yesterday to bring to the notice of concerned authority any unauthorized construction occurring within the Islands. 2 4. This Court is of the view that an unauthorized construction in violation of Municipal Laws and Rules framed thereunder is not only illegal but also would affect the infrastructure of a Municipal Council as a whole and consequently the rights of individual citizens. Unauthorized constructions can occur at any point of time either at the inception of the construction or even subsequently thereafter. 5. In view of the notice of the Administration to citizens published in the newspapers until yesterday, this Court is of the view that every citizen has a right to point out unauthorized construction and take steps against the municipal council/Administration if the same is not addressed in accordance with law. 6. The principle of res judicata therefore has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court notices that there might have been omissions on the part of the advocate for the writ petitioner to effect service on the private respondent. The private respondent has however been permitted to use affidavit-in-opposition and has been heard in extensio by this Court. 7. In the absence of the any prejudice demonstrated by the private respondent notwithstanding infraction of procedure of service, this Court is of the view that the private respondent has not been prejudiced at least in the instant writ petition. 8. The alleged non-service of an earlier writ petition in which an interim order was obtained is no longer germane since the writ petition and appeal carried therefrom have been dismissed. 3 It is submitted by Mr. Prasanth that a Single Bench had recorded that service was refused initially by the third respondent, in the earlier proceedings. 9. The writ petitioner complaints of both unauthorized construction and encroachment of revenue land and that of the SVPMC by the 3rd respondent. Notices that firstly an eviction order has been served on the third respondent by the Tehsildar, Port Blair (now known as Sri Vijaya Puram) on 17th August, 2012, which is annexed at page 14 of the writ petition. The said eviction order records that about 50 Sq. mtrs. of SVPMC and 76.75 Sq.mtrs of revenue land has been encroached by the third respondent. 10. In addition to the above, the Municipal Council has also issued a demolition order of the unauthorized construction effected by the third respondent. In their affidavit-in-opposition at paragraph 8, the SVPMC has stated that the total floor area built in violation of the sanction plan on the ground first, second, third floor and fourth floor in 863.01 Sq. mtrs. In fact there is no sanction for construction of a third and fourth floor on the said hotel. It further transpires that the sanction has been granted for construction of a residential building with a total floor area of 293.49 Sq. mtrs. whereas the hotel is being run therefrom for commercial purposes. 11. The total constructed area admitted by the private respondent appears to be more than 1129 Sq.mtrs. against an allotted land of 200 Sq. mtrs. 12. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the land has since been converted to commercial 4 purpose. There is however no explanation to the unauthorized construction. 13. The Municipal Council has placed on record on affidavit an order of demolition, being Order No. 803 dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the Municipal Council, in respect of the subject property to be complied with by the 3rd respondent. 14. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel for the third respondent, submits that there is a resolution dated 18th April, 2011 of the Executive Engineer of the PBMC, that regularisation of a building constructed in deviation of sanction plan would be given as one time measure. There is however no document to demonstrate that the private respondent’s construction has been regularized. This is apart from the issue of encroachment of Revenue and PBMC land by the private respondent No.3. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever by or how that the third respondent is authorized to occupy a revenue land and land that belongs to SVPMC. 15. The Supreme Court has in several decisions, held that individual unauthorized constructions have the effect seriously upsetting urban agglomeration and creates undue pressure on municipal amenities, to be enjoyed by citizens as a whole. Unless strict measures are taken by the authorities against such illegal constructions, both urban and rural infrastructure would suffer. 16. Reference in this regard is made inter alia in the cases of Supertech Ltd vs. Emerald Court Owners Resident Welfare Association and others reported in (2021) 10 SCC 1; Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another vs. U.P. Avas Evam 5 Vikas Parishad and others vs UP Awas avam vikas parishad reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, and recently in Loganathan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others being order dated 16th February, 2026 passed in SLP Nos. 8044 - 8045 of 2025. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to direct the SVPMC to forthwith to seal the hotel in question. 18. The SVPMC shall be entitled to implement its earlier order of demolition in accordance with law, if the unauthorized and illegal construction by the respondent no.3 has not been regularized. 19. In any event the Tehsildar, Port Blair and the SVPMC shall be entitled to enter upon the constructed the area of the private respondent to reclaim and restore to themselves the encroached portions of their respective properties by the respondent No. 3. 20. It is expected that urgent and immediate steps are taken by the SVPMC and the revenue authorities in this regard preferably within a period of two months from date. 21. The Aberdeen PS shall extend all necessary cooperation to the SVPMC and the Tehsildar, Port Blair to carry out aforesaid order. 22. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/79/2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 23. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )