Calcutta High Court
WPA/20625/2026 of BISWAJIT NASKAR Vs THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. on 8 September 2026
Sl. no. DL/33 Court No. 446 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 20625 of 2026 In the matter of : BISWAJIT NASKAR … Petitioner VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. … Respondents For the Petitioner :
08.09.2026
Sl. no. DL/33
Court No. 446
Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Case No.
WPA 20625 of 2026
In the matter of :
BISWAJIT NASKAR
… Petitioner
VS.
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
… Respondents
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy
Ms. Sohini Kundu
Mr. Debojyoti Goswami
… Advocates
For the KMC :
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
… Advocates
For the State :
Mr. Arijit Bakshi
Mr. Pijush Kanti Ghoshal
… Advocates
For the Private Respondent nos.9-10, 12, 13 & 16 :
Mr. Goutam Malik
… Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner alleges unauthorized and illegal construction of the building by the respondent no.7 to 18 encroaching upon the common passage and thereby causing immense inconvenience to his ingress to and egress from the petitioner’s residential house.
2. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the private respondents herein had undertaken the construction of a building without obtaining any sanction building plan and without obtaining necessary permission from the corporation. He submits that this fact was brought to the notice of the concerned respondent by submitting several representations. However, despite receipt of such representations, no steps have been taken. Given this situation, the petitioner has been constrained to prefer the present writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer advanced on behalf of the petitioner, however, he submits that he does not have any objection if the matter is relegated to the concerned authority with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner.
4. Ms. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the Corporation and Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the private respondents adopt the submission made by Mr. Bakshi.
5. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record and noting the stands taken by the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.5 to consider the petitioner’s representation received by the corporation on 19th May, 2026 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. However, before passing any reasoned order, the respondent no.5 shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the private respondents.
6. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )