Calcutta High Court Rules Against Municipal Curtailment Of Appeal Rights In Illegal Construction Cases

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has clarified the limits of municipal power regarding enforcement of demolition orders. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury intervened in a dispute between Md. Ajmal Siddique and the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, underscoring that administrative actions cannot override the statutory rights of aggrieved parties to seek appellate relief.

The Conflict Over Unregulated Construction The controversy surfaced after the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation issued an order on July 4, 2026, mandating the demolition of an alleged unauthorized structure at premises FE-20, Salt Lake City. The Corporation’s order required the petitioners to execute the demolition within a mere three days.

The petitioners approached the High Court, challenging the brevity of this compliance window, arguing that it effectively barred them from invoking their statutory right to appeal under Section 266(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

Arguments from the Parties Representing the petitioners, senior advocate Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya submitted that the opportunity of hearing granted by the Corporation was inadequate. Crucially, he argued that the immediate deadline for demolition violated the spirit of the Act, which provides a right of appeal, thereby forcing the petitioners into a position where their legal recourse would be rendered moot.

Conversely, the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation argued that its action was justified, citing the petitioners' acknowledgment of unauthorized construction during the hearing process. Counsel for the Corporation contended that providing extra time for an appeal would lead to a "floodgate of litigation," hindering the municipality's ability to enforce building regulations effectively.

Judicial Reasoning and Principles The Court rejected the Corporation’s argument that municipal authorities possess the power to effectively seal the fate of an appeal based on their internal understanding of the law. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that when a statute confers a right of appeal, that right is substantive and cannot be truncated by the adjudicating authority to suit administrative convenience. The Court observed that the fear of "opening flood gates" is a misplaced justification for bypassing clear statutory mandates.

Key Observations * "In my view, the adjudicating authority cannot seal the fate of the appeal on the basis of his understanding of the law." * "If the statute recognizes that the person aggrieved has a right to prefer an appeal, such right cannot be interfered with or usurped by the adjudicating authority ." * "The statutory period for preferring the appeal also cannot be abridged on such consideration."

Final Decision and Implications The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction: the demolition order of July 4, 2026, must be read as allowing the petitioners a 30-day window to comply, provided they utilize that time to prefer an appeal.

By refusing to delve into the merits of the illegal construction itself, the Court left the substantive challenge open for the appropriate Appellate Authority. This decision serves as a vital precedent, ensuring that municipal bodies throughout the state respect the legal procedural timelines that protect citizens' rights to challenge arbitrary or overly harsh administrative enforcement actions.