WPA/19991/2026 of SHAKIL AHMED Vs THE BALLY MUNICIPALITY AND ORS on 11 September 2026

1. Supplementary affidavit and the affidavit of service filed by the petitioner are taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 9.07.2026 passed by the Executive Officer, Bally Municipality. By the said order, the complaint lodged by the petitioner, namely, Md. Imtiaz, was disposed of with a direction that a proceeding under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 be initiated in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction raised at premises no. 37, B. K. Paul Temple Road, Belur, Howrah.

3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in the present case, an inspection of the building was conducted on 12.06.2026. Referring to the notice dated 27.07.2026 issued by the

Executive Officer, he submits that the said notice records that a joint enquiry team had visited the building on 07.07.2026 and, upon enquiry, submitted its report before the Technical Sub-Committee at its meeting held on 13.07.2026. He submits that no report of the said enquiry was furnished to the petitioner, nor was the inspection report made available to the petitioner before the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing.

4. He further submits that, without furnishing the relevant inspection/enquiry report to the petitioner or affording him an effective opportunity to deal with the same, the Executive Officer proceeded to conclude that the construction had been raised in contravention of the applicable building rules and the sanctioned plan. Consequently, a self-demolition order dated 20.08.2026 was passed, directing the petitioner to demolish certain portions of the construction alleged to be unauthorized, as identified in the table forming part of the said order.

5. He submits that the order itself indicates that the inspection report had not been furnished to the petitioner prior thereto. According to him, such non-supply of the inspection report, before the same was relied upon against the petitioner, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the matter calls for immediate intervention by this Court and that, unless the operation of the demolition order is stayed in the meantime, the petitioner is likely to suffer serious prejudice.

6. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the Municipality, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya. He submits that the inspection report was duly furnished to the petitioner and that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.

7. He further submits that the petitioner has not stated either in the writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit that the inspection report had never been served upon him prior to the hearing. According to him, there is, therefore, no infirmity or illegality in the decision-making process adopted by the authority. Lastly, he submits that the demolition order dated 20.08.2026 is an appealable order and that an appeal lies before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. He submits that the present writ petition does not contain any challenge to the demolition order dated 20.08.2026 and, therefore, any submission advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya assailing the said demolition order is beyond the pleadings and ought not to be entertained.

8. In response, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the petitioner is willing to avail the remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum. He, however, submits that, in the meantime, and until the petitioner approaches the appellate forum and seeks interim protection therein, an interim order may be passed restraining the Municipality from giving effect to the demolition order.

9. Mr. Banerjee submits that the demolition order shall take effect only upon expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt thereof. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner shall have sufficient time, in the meantime, to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum and seek interim protection therefrom.

10. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and considering that the petitioner has sufficient time to prefer an appeal against the demolition order and seek interim protection before the appellate forum, and further having regard to the petitioner’s stated intention to avail such appellate remedy, I am of the view that no further issue remains to be adjudicated in the present writ petition.

11. Mr. Banerjee submits that, before expiry of the period stipulated in the demolition order, the Municipality shall not take any steps to demolish the building or any part thereof. Such submission of Mr. Banerjee is placed on record.

12. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. There shall no order as to the costs.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)