26.11.2025

sb

Ct.3.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 25522 of 2025

Bulai S. Ganguly

Versus

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee

Mr. Siddharta Basu

… For the petitioner.

Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee

Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee

Ms. Manisha Nath

… For Kolkata Municipal Corporation

Mr. Bimalendu Das

Ms. Kakali Pal

… For the State.

1. Though the writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 3rd November, 2025, issued by the respondent no.3, however, upon hearing the parties this Court was pleased to pass the order dated 12th November,

2025 on the following terms:-

“This matter was mentioned in the morning citing

extreme urgency. Accordingly, this matter has been taken up out of turn upon notice to the Municipal

authorities.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate

representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 3rd November, 2025 would submit that without providing the petitioner with any opportunity of hearing, a decision has been taken to demolish unauthorized/dangerous portion of the building i.e. the dilapidated portion of premises No.

12/1A Hindustan Park, Kolkata - 700029 pursuant to an order dated 24th July, 2025.

Mr. Chowdhury would submit that the order dated 24th July, 2025 issued under Section 411(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has never been served on the petitioner. Without serving such an order, the respondents are proceeding with the demolition proceeding in hot haste.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate representing the municipal corporation would submit that the portion of the varanda appearing from the photograph at page 25 of the writ petition which is dilapidated requires to be demolished on urgent basis since the same is endangering the life of the people at large. He would submit that the respondents propose to demolish the dilapidated varanda as seen in the photograph appearing at page 25 of the writ petition for the present. The said portion i.e. the damaged varanda, according to him, is beyond repair.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate on instruction would submit that he has no objection if the dilapidated varanda as appearing in the picture at page 25 is only demolished without in any way compromising with the structural integrity of the existing building. Since the dilapidated varanda is likely to endanger the people at large, he has instruction not to stand in the way of the demolition proceeding if the same is confined only to the said varanda.

Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the demolition proceeding as scheduled insofar as the dilapidated varanda is concerned, may go on without in any way compromising with the structural stability of the building and without interfering with the possession of the private respondents.

The Municipal authority shall be at liberty to carry out an inspection of the premises upon prior notice to the learned advocate on record of the petitioner.

The Municipal authority is directed to file an action taken report enclosing therewith coloured photographs of the building after the demolition of the varanda is completed.

List this matter to appear under the heading “Motion” on 19th November, 2025”.

2. Since then, the municipal authorities have filed an action taken report dated 18th November, 2025 recording therein that the dilapidated portion has been identified and notice has been served on all concerned for carrying out the demolition work of the dilapidated verandah portion which has been fixed on 21st November, 2025 between 11.30 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. A report filed in Court today dated 24th November, 2025 records that the demolition of the dilapidated verandah portion from the outside building on 21st November, 2025 with the help of demolition gang M/s Bijoy Kumar Enterprise, under the supervision of structural engineer Mr. Azharudin Ahmed and also with the assistance of Gariahat Police Station has been carried out. It has also been recorded that the demolition of verand