[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Maya Dastidar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 January, 2026
2026:CHC-OS:17
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
BEFORE:
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
WPO 813 of 2025
MAYA DASTIDAR
-VS-
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
WPO 843 of 2025
MAYA DASTIDAR
-VS-
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
With
WPA 15289 of 2025
KANTI JANA
-VS-
THE KMC & ORS.
For the petitioner : Mr. Samim Ahmed, Adv.
Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Adv.
For the KMC : Mr. Alak Kr.Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv.
2
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
For the respondent No.10. : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Joyjit Roy Choudhury, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Jana, Adv.
Heard on : 15.01.2026.
Judgment on : 15th January, 2026.
RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.:
1. The affidavit-of-service in WPO 843 of 2025 filed in Court today be taken
on record.
2. Two writ petitions in the Original Side being WPO 813 of 2025 and WPO
843 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the first and second writ petitions)
along with the writ petition in Appellate Side being WPA 15289 of 2025
(hereinafter referred to as the third writ petition) are taken up for
consideration together.
3. By consent of the parties, the above writ petitions are taken up for final
disposal.
4. WPO 813 of 2025 has been filed, inter alia, questioning the authority of
the Executive Engineer (Building) to issue a hearing notice in relation to a
proceeding under Section 397 of the KMC Act, 1980 for revocation of
sanctioned building permit bearing No. 2024110142 dated 13 th August,
2024 pertaining to premises No. 87 Milan Park ward No. 110, Borough XI,
Kolkata 700084.
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
5. The first two writ petitions have been filed by the person in whose favour
the sanctioned building permit has been issued, while the third writ
petition has been filed by a person claiming to be an owner of a
neighbouring premises who, inter alia, also claims that the aforesaid
municipal building permit has been issued without following statutory
provisions and is liable to be cancelled. An application seeking
cancellation of the building permit is also on record.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I
find that the writ petitioner in the first two writ petitions in the Original
Side who is the holder of the sanctioned building plan claims to be seized
and possessed of the land measuring 2 cottahs 11 chitak together with
three storied building more fully described as premises No. 87 Milan Park
as aforesaid. The aforesaid writ petitioner claims that the property stands
mutated in her name and an assessee number has also been allotted.
7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner in the first
two writ petitions would contend that though the municipal authorities
after carrying out detailed scrutiny had issued a sanctioned building
permit upon realization of statutory fees all on a sudden, a notice has
been served on the petitioner in the first two writ petitions inviting the
petitioner to appear in a hearing in relation to revocation of the sanctioned
building permit. He submits that though an order of revocation can only
be issued by the municipal commissioner, the proceeding has been
initiated by the Executive Engineer building and as such the entire
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
proceeding is non est. Independent of the above, he would submit that
though there was no reason to issue the notice under Section 401 of the
said Act dated 14th January, 2025 the same has been illegally issued
thereby, jeopardizing the entire project. He would submit that although,
the petitioner had brought in men and machinery and has invested huge
amount to carry out construction in accordance with the sanctioned
building permit, the notice of stop work has been issued in the most mala
fide manner. The municipal authorities should not be permitted to act in
an arbitrary fashion. In any event, the notice does not highlight the
violations committed, accordingly the same also cannot be sustained on
such ground as well.
8. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the municipality has filed a
report which is counter signed by the Sub Assistant Engineer (C),
Assistant Engineer (C) Building and the Executive Engineer (C), Borough
XI dated 20th November, 2025 to highlight the fact that there are
irregularities in the petitioner in the first two writ petitions obtaining
sanctioned building plan for which appropriate proceedings under Section
397 of the said Act has been initiated. According to him, the notice under
Section 401 of the said Act, indicates that the petitioner in the first two
writ petitions has acted in violation of the sanctioned building permit, and
accordingly, there is no irregularity on the part of the municipality in
issuing the same.
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
9. The writ petition in the Appellate Side pertains to issuance of directions
for cancellation of the sanctioned building permit issued in favour of the
writ petitioner in the first two writ petitions filed in the Original Side.
10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I
find that there is a validly issued sanctioned building permit in favour of
the petitioner in the first two writ petitions in the Original Side. The
municipal authorities, however, are enquiring into certain alleged
misrepresentation being made by the said petitioner while obtaining the
sanctioned building permit. Mr. Ghosh, however, could not identify the
particulars or the reasons why the notice under Section 401 of the said
Act has been issued. What has been attempted to be portrayed by the
municipality is that since, the sanctioned building plan might have been
issued on the basis of incorrect representation being made by the
petitioner in the first two writ petitions, the construction should not
proceed further.
11. On such ground, I am of the view that it is too premature at this stage to
restrain the petitioner in the first two writ petitions from carrying out
construction on the basis of a validly and/or invalidly of the sanctioned
building permit. If, ultimately the municipal authorities come to a
conclusion that the building permit has been issued on the basis of
suppression or misrepresentation, it is always open to the municipal
authorities to revoke the same and the petitioner in the first two writ
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
petitions cannot claim any equity, for the municipal authorities having
issued the sanctioned building plan.
12. Although on such ground, I find that the notice issued under Section 401
of the said Act is not sustainable since the Statute does not recognize any
authority of the municipal commissioner to take any interim step to stop
construction on the basis of a purported invalidity of the sanctioned
building plan which is yet to be decided. Accordingly, the notice issued
under Section 401 stands quashed.
13. Coming back to the writ petition being WPO 813 of 2025, I find though the
petitioner in the first writ petition contends that the notice of the
proceeding under Section 397 of the said Act can only be issued by the
municipal commissioner and the notice issued by the Executive Engineer
is non est, I find that the Act does not stand in the way of the Executive
Engineer intimating the parties of a notice of hearing which in this case is
to be held by the municipal commissioner. Simply because the Executive
Engineer has notified the petitioner in WPO 813 of 2025 of the date of
hearing, the same does not render the proceeding non est or bad. Once,
the proceeding has been initiated under Section 397 of the said Act, such
proceeding must be brought to a logical conclusion.
14. Considering the peculiar facts at hand and the likelihood of multiplicity of
proceedings, it is expected that the municipal authorities shall dispose of
the proceeding under Section 397 of the said Act, as expeditiously as
possible preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
this order. In interregnum, the construction, if any, shall take place at the
risk and cost of the petitioner in the first two writ petitions provided the
notice of commencement of construction has already been issued. If,
however, no notice of commencement of construction has been issued, no
such notice shall be issued or received by the municipality for a period of
eight weeks from the date, within which the proceeding under Section 397
of the said Act must be concluded.
15. Insofar as the writ petition in the Appellate Side is concerned, I am of the
view, that the petitioner in the third writ petition may also be heard by the
municipal commissioner in relation to the complaint made by the
petitioner in the third writ petition. It is expected that the municipal
authorities shall disclose all documents which the municipal authorities
seek to rely while deciding the application under Section 397 of the said
Act, for the writ petitioner in the first two writ petitions to respond to the
same.
16. Since, this Court has not called for any affidavits, the allegations made in
the writ petitions are deemed not to have been admitted by the
respondents.
17. It is also made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the
cause and it shall be open to the municipal commissioner or its delegates
to decide the proceeding in accordance with law. This order shall also not
be construed as a blanket injunction restraining the municipal authorities
from exercising power under Section 401 of the said Act.
WPO/813/2025,WPO/843/2025
WITH WPA/15289/2025
2026:CHC-OS:17
18. With the above observations and directions the writ petitions are disposed
of.
19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made
available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)
nm
