[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain And Anr vs The Municipal Commissioner on 19 February, 2026
OD- 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/870/2025
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND ANR.
VS
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER,
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
Date: 19th February, 2026
Appearance:
Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bikash Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Swapna Jha, Adv.
Ms. Katha Sarkar, Adv.
....for the petitioners
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
...for the KMC
Mr. Ankit Agarwala, Adv.
Ms. Alotriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Arpita Paul Biswas, Adv.
....for the respondents 3, 4 & 5
1. Challenging the order passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal dated 29th
August, 2025 in B.T. Appeal No.117 of 2012 (Rajat Garden Residents'
Association vs. The Municipal Commissioner & Ors.), the instant writ petition
has been filed.
2. Although a point of maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the
private respondents on the issue as to whether this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India can entertain this writ petition, however, having
regard to the voluminous records involved and since all the records are not
available and also considering the fact that the order passed by the Special
Officer (Building) has been reversed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, I am
WPO/870/2025
of the view that the writ petition can be heard by keeping the point of
maintainability as raised by Mr. Agarwala, the learned Advocate representing
the respondent nos,3 4 and 5 open.
3. Though, the writ petition requires to be heard, however, considering the fact
that the matter pertains to illegal construction, I am of the view that the
petitioners should be put to terms and accordingly, this Court is of the view
that a sum of Rs.1 crore should be deposited by the petitioners. At this stage,
the learned senior Advocate representing the petitioners would submit that
instead of Rs.1 crore, if a sum of Rs.50 lakh is directed to be deposited, the
same would relieve the petitioners of the financial constraints, as such,
cosidering such fact, let a sum of Rs.50 lakh be deposited by the petitioners
with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court within a period of eight weeks
from date for the time being.
4. There shall be an unconditional stay of the order impugned for a period of
eight weeks from date. In the event, the aforesaid amount is deposited, the
stay shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further orders
of this Court whichever is earlier. In the event the above amount is deposited
with the Registrar, Original Side, the same shall be kept in a highest interest
bearing short term fixed deposit account maintained with any nationalised
bank, and the same shall be kept renewed from time to time until further
order of this Court.
5. Considering the fact that voluminous records have already been filed and
records of the Tribunal would also be necessary to be considered while
directing the respondents to produce entire records, I direct the petitioners to
file the records in the form of paper book within a period of ten weeks from
date. It is made clear if the deposit as directed above is not made, the stay
shall automatically stand vacated.
WPO/870/2025
6. Liberty to mention after expiry of the period noted above.
7. It is made clear that if the petition is dismissed on the ground of
maintainability, the deposit as directed hereinabove shall be returned to the
petitioners after compliance of usual formalities.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
akg/
