Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 27331 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Bijoy Maji @ Bijoy Kumar Maji

Versus

The Asansol Municipal Corporation & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya

Mr. Ratikanta Pal

For the Asansol Municipal : Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya

Corporation

For the respondent no. 13 : Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debashis Sarkar

For the added respondent : Mr. Subhabrata Datta

Mr. Aranya Saha

For the State : Mr. Amitava Chowdhury

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly

Heard on : 03.12.2025 Judgment on : 03.12.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

In re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia challenging the

order dated 7th November, 2025 issued by the Asansol Municipal Corporation whereby the petitioner has not only been directed to

demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction measuring 15493.43 sq. ft. situate at L.R. Plot No. 740 Mouza Punuri, J.L No. 22, P.S. Kulti, District- Paschim Barddhaman but also to remove the debris and other materials from the plot in question and reinstate the plot to its original state i.e. pukur/pond within the time specified therein.

2. It is in connection with the above writ petition, a connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 has been filed, praying for addition of party in the above writ petition.

3. Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the intervener/applicant for addition of party, by drawing attention of this Court to prayer (d) of the writ petition, would submit that the writ petition in fact seeks implementation of the order dated 28th July, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation being WPA (P) 232 of 2025 (Sabyasachi Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) which writ petition incidentally, was filed by the applicant. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has not been made a party in the writ petition. The applicant is also interested in the implementation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 28th July, 2025, as such, no order in the present writ petition can be passed in absence of the applicant.

4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the applicant is interested in implementation of the order dated 28th July, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench as aforesaid and considering that the writ petitioner herein also seeks implementation of such order, I am of the view that the applicant is a necessary party and should be added as a party respondent in the present writ petition.

5. Accordingly, leave is granted to the petitioner’s advocate on record to add the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 as party respondent in the instant writ petition in course of the day.

6. Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, accepts service of the writ petition for the added respondent. The application CAN 1 of 2025 accordingly stands disposed of.

In re: WPA 27331 of 2025

7. By consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final consideration.

8. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition, at the very outset, would submit that the aforesaid order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Asansol Municipal Corporation dated 7th November 2025 suffers from procedural irregularities. He would submit that although, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the municipality was under an obligation to afford the person interested including the petitioner reasonable opportunity of showing cause as to why the demolition order shall not be passed, the petitioner has been denied such opportunity. In the instant case, the Superintending Engineer did not disclose the documents based on which the aforesaid order has been passed. He would submit that though an enquiry has been conducted at the locale, the enquiry report thereof was no