IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO 813 of 2025 MAYA DASTIDAR -VS-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

WPO 843 of 2025 MAYA DASTIDAR -VS-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

With WPA 15289 of 2025 KANTI JANA -VS-

THE KMC & ORS.

For the petitioner : Mr. Samim Ahmed, Adv.

Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Adv.

Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Adv.

For the KMC : Mr. Alak Kr.Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.

Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv.

For the respondent No.10. : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Joyjit Roy Choudhury, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Jana, Adv.

Heard on : 15.01.2026.

Judgment on : 15th January, 2026.

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.:

1. The affidavit-of-service in WPO 843 of 2025 filed in Court today be taken on record.

2. Two writ petitions in the Original Side being WPO 813 of 2025 and WPO

843 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the first and second writ petitions) along with the writ petition in Appellate Side being WPA 15289 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the third writ petition) are taken up for consideration together.

3. By consent of the parties, the above writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

4. WPO 813 of 2025 has been filed, inter alia, questioning the authority of the Executive Engineer (Building) to issue a hearing notice in relation to a proceeding under Section 397 of the KMC Act, 1980 for revocation of sanctioned building permit bearing No. 2024110142 dated 13th August, 2024 pertaining to premises No. 87 Milan Park ward No. 110, Borough XI, Kolkata 700084.

5. The first two writ petitions have been filed by the person in whose favour the sanctioned building permit has been issued, while the third writ petition has been filed by a person claiming to be an owner of a neighbouring premises who, inter alia, also claims that the aforesaid municipal building permit has been issued without following statutory provisions and is liable to be cancelled. An application seeking cancellation of the building permit is also on record.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the writ petitioner in the first two writ petitions in the Original Side who is the holder of the sanctioned building plan claims to be seized and possessed of the land measuring 2 cottahs 11 chitak together with three storied building more fully described as premises No. 87 Milan Park as aforesaid. The aforesaid writ petitioner claims that the property stands mutated in her name and an assessee number has also been allotted.

7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner in the first two writ petitions would contend that though the municipal authorities after carrying out detailed scrutiny had issued a sanctioned building permit upon realization of statutory fees all on a sudden, a notice has been served on the petitioner in the first two writ petitions inviting the petitioner to appear in a hearing in relation to revocation of the sanctioned building permit. He submits that though an order of revocation can only be issued by the municipal commissioner, the proceeding has been initiated by the Executive Engineer building and as such the entire proceeding is non est. Independent of the above, he would submit that though there was no reason to issue the notice under Section 401 of the said Act dated 14th January, 2025 the same has been illegally issued thereby, jeopardizing the entire project. He would submit that although, the petitioner had brought in men and machinery and has invested huge amount to carry out construction in accordance with the sanctioned building permit, the notice of stop work has been issued in the most mala fide manner. The municipal authorities should not be permitted to act in an arbitrary fashion. In any event, the notice does not highlight the violations committed, accordingly the same also cannot be sustained on such ground as well.

8. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate repres