[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Ganesh Tiwari vs Dhaval Jain And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
OD-2
ORDER SHEET
CC/78/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Special Jurisdiction (Contempt)
ORIGINAL SIDE
GANESH TIWARI
-VS-
DHAVAL JAIN AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI
Date 13.2.2026.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv., for petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Ghosh, Adv.; Mr. A. Dey, Adv., for KMC/alleged contemnor
1. The Court: Attention of the Court is drawn to a typographical error which has
crept in the order dated December 2, 2025.
2. In the last line at page 2 of the said order, it has been inadvertently recorded
"Borough-V" instead of "Borough-VII." Let such error be rectified.
3. This order shall form part of the order dated December 2, 2025.
4. The petitioner has alleged that the directions contained in the order dated
November 27, 2024, passed in WPO(P)/3/2024, have not been complied with.
2
5. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor submits that
the directions contained in the said order have already been complied with. Mr.
Ghosh further submits that pursuant to the directions passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench, inspections were carried out and order under section 408 of the
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has been passed and certain portions of
the building were directed to be demolished. He further submits that a part of
the demolition work has already been carried out and the work of further
demolition is in progress.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner disputes such submission. He submits that
the demolition work is yet to be completed.
7. Before deciding as to whether the directions contained in the order dated
November 27, 2024 can be said to have been complied with or not, it would be
relevant to take note of the directions passed in the order dated November 27,
2024, for which the relevant part is extracted hereinbelow:
"Thus, without going into any of the allegations made by the petitioner against
the private respondents, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the
Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, to consider the petitioner's
representation dated 24th May, 2024 and direct one of its officers to conduct a
surprise inspection in the building and examine any planning permission was
obtained and if not obtained, appropriate actions be initiated under the Kolkata
Municipal Corporation Act. If planning permission had been obtained, the
authority should also consider as to whether the building has been put up in
accordance with the sanctioned plan, if not, action should be initiated."
8. Thus, it is evident that the Commissioner of Kolkata Municipal Corporation was
directed to cause a surprise inspection of the building and examine whether any
planning permission was obtained and if not obtained, to initiate appropriate
actions. It was, however, directed that if any planning permission had been
obtained, the authority should also consider as to whether the building has been
put up in accordance with the sanctioned plan and if not, actions should be
initiated.
9. Since an order has been passed under section 408 of the KMC Act, 1980, this
Court is of the considered view that the directions contained in the order dated
November 27, 2024 have been complied with. The submission of Mr. Ghosh that
steps have been taken to complete the demolition work and the same is in
progress is placed on record.
10. Learned Advocate for the alleged contemners is directed to serve a copy of
the order passed by the KMC under section 408 of the KMC Act, 1980 upon the
learned Advocate for the petitioner on or before February 20, 2026.
11. With the above directions, CC/78/2025 stands disposed of.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.)
tk
