WPA/12669/2026 of SUSHIL KUMAR BHATTER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 1 September 2026

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following reliefs :- “ (a) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the directing the respondent authorities, particularly the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, to take immediate action under Sections 411 and 412 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in respect of Premises No. 40, Shiv Thakur Lane, Kolkata – 700 007”.

3. Mr. Sujit Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, on several occasions, the petitioner approached the competent authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, “KMC”) seeking demolition of the building and removal of the unauthorised occupier therefrom. However, till date, no effective steps have been taken by the KMC in this regard. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities as well as the respondent no.

4.

5. I find that Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General, who usually appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, is present in Court. I request Mr. Bhattacharyya to appear on behalf of the KMC and assist this Court in the matter. Let the appointment of Mr. Bhattacharyya be duly regularised. A copy of the writ petition has been handed over to Mr. Bhattacharyya in Court today.

6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, submits that, as far back as in 2015, a notice was served upon the petitioner requiring him to undertake the necessary repair works. However, the petitioner took no steps in that regard. After a lapse of four years, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10th May, 2019, requesting the competent authority of the KMC to invoke the provisions of Section 412 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (in short, “the 1980 Act”). However, after a further lapse of seven years, awaking from a deep slumber, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 6th May, 2026. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, such conduct on the part of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. He submits that the provisions of Sections 411 and 412 of the 1980 Act cannot be invoked as a means of evicting a trespasser or tenant from any premises. He further submits that, if the petitioner seeks to evict or remove any trespasser or tenant, his appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court.

7. In response, Mr. Sujit Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if the matter is relegated to the competent authority of the KMC to decide the representation dated 6th May, 2026.

8. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the KMC cannot undertake to remove any unauthorized occupier or tenant from the building. At best, the KMC can undertake the repairing work, but the cost of such repairing work has to be borne by the petitioner, being the owner of the premises.

9. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the respective stands of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 6th May, 2026, and pass a reasoned order thereon, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 herein. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With these observations and directions, WPA 12669 of 2026 is disposed of.

12. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the issues raised in the petitioner’s representation dated 6th May, 2026, and all points are left open to be considered and decided by the concerned authority while considering the said representation.

13. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)