IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR No. 3003 of 2022 With CRAN 6 of 2024 CRAN 8 of 2025 Mahendra Baid Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajitesh Pandey Mr. Md. Zohaib Rauf For the State : Ms. Sreyashee Biswas For the KMC : Mr. Goutam Dinda Mr. Anindyasundar Chatterjee Hearing concluded on : 31.01.2025 Judgment on : 25.04.2025 Uday Kumar, J:-

1. This revisional application, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the proceedings of M.F. Case No. 1065 of 2018, pending before the Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Kolkata, arising out of Jorasanko P.S. Case No. 235 of 2018, under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter, the “KMC Act”). The petitioner, Mahendra Baid, seeks quashing of the proceedings only on the ground that it is tainted by a fundamental illegality from the very inception, specifically a blatant disregard for the mandatory procedural safeguard enshrined in Section

620 of the KMC Act.

2. The factual matrix, as presented before this Court, reveals that the petitioner’s late father held recorded ownership of the premises at 43, Barwaritalla Road, Kolkata. A sanctioned building plan, bearing No. 2014030029 and issued in 2014, authorized construction at the said premises. Subsequently, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a show cause notice dated 17.03.2017, invoking Sections 400(1) and 416 of the KMC Act, alleging deviations from the sanctioned plan. Following a hearing by the direction of the KMC, they permitted the petitioner to retain the construction, contingent upon the submission of an affidavit and the payment of the stipulated retention fees. The petitioner duly complied with these conditions, culminating in the approval of the D-sketch plan. However, the factual matrix took a criminal turn with the registration of Jorasanko P.S. Case No. 235/2018, predicated on a complaint lodged by one Ashish Kundu, identified as an Assistant Engineer. The gravamen of the complaint was that the petitioner had undertaken the construction of a partition wall without obtaining the requisite sanction, thereby purportedly endangering human life. Consequently, a charge-sheet was filed on 27.07.2018, invoking the punitive provisions of Section 401A of the KMC Act.

3. The petitioner assailed the proceeding on the principal ground that the statutory condition articulated in Section 620 of the KMC Act mandating a complaint by the Municipal Commissioner or a person authorized by him, was not fulfilled. This Section unequivocally mandates that no court shall entertain a trial for any offence punishable under the Act except upon a complaint initiated by the Municipal Commissioner himself or a person duly authorized by him in this specific regard. Ancillary to this primary contention, the petitioner also asserted that the non-service of a ‘Stop Work’ notice under Section 401 of the KMC Act and the absence of any prior verification of the property’s ownership before the institution of these criminal proceedings.

4. Mr. Ajitesh Pandey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argued that the very foundation of the proceeding suffers from a patent illegality. The crux of his argument lies in the fact that the proceeding under Section 401A of the KMC Act was set in motion by a written complaint emanating from an individual, the aforementioned Assistant Engineer, whose authority to initiate such a serious criminal action remains unsubstantiated by any discernible documentary evidence of specific authorization from the Municipal Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this act of initiating prosecution by an allegedly unauthorized individual strikes at the very root of the statutory scheme envisioned by Section

620 of the KMC Act.

5. Mr. Pandey contended that this action is in direct contravention of Section 3A of