Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 304 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 Mithu Bose Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

With WPA 27948 of 2025 Souren Dey Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors For the petitioner : Mr. B. P. Banerjee In WPA 304 of 2024 Mr. P. Baidya For the petitioner : Mr. Shib Shankar Banerjee In WPA 27948 of 2025 Mr. Santanu Chatterjee & Private respondent in Mr. Shaunak Ghosh WPA 304 of 2024 Ms. Shreyashi Maity Mr. Siddthanth Chamria For the Municipality : Mr. Supriya Roychowdhury Mr. Sankar Ghosh Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee Heard on : 15.01.2026. Judgment on : 15.01.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The writ petition, being WPA 304 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “first writ petition”), has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking for a direction upon the municipal authorities to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction in the building situate at Mouza- Noapara, J.L. No.83, Revenue Survey No. 137, Touza No. 146, P.S. Barasat, Holding No.139 Gupta Colony, District North 24 Parganas, in terms of the report dated 8th May, 2019 prepared by the official of Barasat Municipality.

2. WPA 27948 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “second writ petition), has been filed challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2023 passed by the Chairman, Barasat Municipality, whereby the Chairman had by noting the inspection report dated 8th May, 2019, directed the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised/deviated portions.

3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appears in support of the second writ petition and would submit that the Chairman of the municipality did not have the competence to pass the demolition order impugned in the writ petition. In any event, it is submitted that the second writ petitioner is now armed with a revised sanctioned building plan issued and counter signed by the Chairman of the municipality whereby by the deviations have now been regularized in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act’) and Rules framed thereunder.

4. By drawing attention of this Court to the inspection report as referred to in the order dated 2nd August, 2023, he submits that the inspection report refers to sanctioned building plan which now stands superseded by the revised building plan issued on 14th August, 2015 and having regard thereto, the above inspection report can no longer be relied on.

5. Learned advocate appearing in support of the first writ petition would, on the other hand, submit that in the year 2019, the petitioner in the second writ petition did not object to the inspection being carried out. Such inspection has been carried out on the basis of the sanctioned building plan issued on 29th September, 2014 as is referred to in the inspection report. According to him, the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed there under do not authorize the municipality to issue a revised sanctioned building plan. By drawing attention of this Court to the certificate granting occupancy/completion certificate issued by the office of the Commissioner, Barasat Municipality he submits that once a certificate granting occupancy/completion is issued, there is no scope available to alter or revise the sanctioned building plan. According to him, admittedly, in this case the occupancy certificate has been issued on the basis of the sanctioned building plan issued on 29th September, 2014, and as such the purported revised sanctioned building plan relied on by the petitioner in the second writ petition dated 14th August, 2015 is a document which did not see the light of the day until, disclosure being made by the petitioner in the second writ petition. Having regard thereto, no reliance be placed to the same.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record in the instant case at h