Calcutta High Court
La Martiniere School For Boys & Others vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation And ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/1/2025
IN
WPO/100/2025
LA MARTINIERE SCHOOL FOR BOYS & OTHERS
VERSUS
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
For the petitioners : Ms. Shrayashee Das, Advocate
Mr. Sankalp Narain, Advocate
Mr. B. P. Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Advocate
Mr. Rohan Kr. Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Advocate
For KMC : Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Advocate
For State of W.B. : Mr. Swapan Banerjee, AGP
Mr. D. Narayan Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. D. Das, Advocate
Heard on : September 16, 2025.
Judgment on : September 16, 2025.
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.:
In Re: IA NO. GA/1/2025
1. On the prayer of Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, learned advocate
appearing for KMC, time to file affidavit in opposition in the instant
application stands extended till today. The affidavit in opposition filed in
Court today is taken on record. Copy has already been served upon the
writ petitioners.
2. Ms. Shrayashee Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has
referred to a specific averment made by KMC in the its affidavit in
opposition, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"g) It is apparent and clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
Appeal Court that the School was permitted to carry out the certain urgent
repairing works as indicated in the report dated 9th June, 2025 and
reflected in the resolution of the H.C.C. dated 12th June, 2025. That being
the position the force of the stop work notice as earlier issued and
challenged in the writ petition has become infructuous. In so far as the
letter of the Executive Engineer (civil) of the E & H Department dated 29th
January, 2025 as addressed to the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station for
taking appropriate action against the offenders the Heritage Conservation
Committee made the third recommendation in its resolution dated 12th
June, 2025."
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the stop-work
notice has become infructuous, as admitted by KMC in the affidavit in
opposition, if the KMC withdraws the said stop-work notice, the
petitioners shall also withdraw the writ petition.
4. At this juncture, Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for
KMC, referring to the same averment made in the affidavit in opposition,
as quoted above, submits that since the stop-work notice has become
infructuous in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Appellate Court,
there is no need to proceed with the writ petition any further as the
same has become infructuous. He further submits that the said stop-
work notice which is under challenge in the writ petition has also
become infructuous.
5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it appears to
this Court that the pendency of this writ petition any further will be a
futile formality.
6. Accordingly, the main writ petition is being treated as on day's list for
final hearing, by consent of the parties, and the same also stands
disposed of with the instant application.
7. In view of the above, this writ petition WPO/100/2025 stands disposed
of and consequently, the instant application IA NO. GA/1/2025 also
stands disposed of. Connected applications, if any pending, also stand
disposed of.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
S. Kumar
