22.01.2026 sb/sayandeep Ct.3.

Sakshi Ganga Realtors Private Limited & Anr.

Versus Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Advocate Ms. Anamika Bari Ms. Mahashree Ghosh … For the petitioners.

Mr. Ankit Sureka … For Howrah Municipal Corporation

1. The instant writ petition was moved citing extreme urgency alleging that without serving the order of demolition dated 10th June, 2025, the municipality has proceeded to execute the same. It is in those facts and the municipality having failed, at that stage, to demonstrate proof of service of the order dated 10th June, 2025, this Court had passed an interim order on 19th November, 2025.

2. Mr. Sureka, learned advocate representing Howrah Municipal Corporation has placed before this Court the photocopy of the letter dated 10th December, 2025, issued by the Sr. Superintendent, RMS “WB” Division and would submit that on the basis of a request made by the municipality, an enquiry was conducted by the postal authorities which has resulted in the municipality being served with the above communication. The relevant portion of the communication is extracted hereinbelow:-

“After receiving your complaint this office started enquiry regarding the case and as per SAP tracking report of the article in question, it was revealed that article in question was delivered from Esplanade S.O. on 14-06-25. Photocopy of web tracking report of the article in question is enclosed herewith.”

3. Mr. Sureka would submit that from the above it is apparent and clear that the petitioners had been served with the demolition order. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, suppressing such fact, the above writ petition was moved. He submits that the petitioner have carried out illegal construction of three additional floors which is around 16000 sq. fts. in the existing construction.

4. The order dated 10th June, 2025 has also been placed before this Court by the municipality. Perusal of the order would demonstrate that the petitioners were duly represented at the time of hearing. The order substantiates the fact that three additional floors have been constructed by the petitioners. Incidentally, the aforesaid order has already been disclosed in the writ petition.

5. Having regard to the peculiar state of facts prevailing and noting that the petitioners have already been served with the copy of the order, presumption of the service of the order in this regard has been raised from the track report, as such I am of the view that there is no scope to consider the petition on the ground of non-service of the order any longer.

6. At this stage, since Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate representing the petitioners by placing reliance on the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, In Re., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 1 would submit that all demolition orders including the order dated 10th June, 2025, which have been passed contrary to the directives contained in the above order cannot be enforced, in my view, the matter would require consideration.

7. Having regard thereto, let the matter be listed for further consideration under the same heading on 27th January, 2026 at 10:30 A.M. The interim order shall continue till the next date.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)