Calcutta High Court
MAT/1251/2026 of KARTICK CH HALDER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 18 August 2026
Court No.12 (gc) MAT 1251 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Kartick Chandra Halder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay …for the Appellant. Mr. Debasish Chowdhuri, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Sruti Datta …for the State. Mr. Subhasis
18.08.2026
SL No.15
Court No.12
(gc)
MAT 1251 of 2026
CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
Kartick Chandra Halder
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay
…for the Appellant.
Mr. Debasish Chowdhuri,
Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay,
Ms. Sruti Datta
…for the State.
Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay
…for the Municipality.
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee
…for the Private Respondent.
Re: CAN 1 of 2026
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 writ petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mukherjee, has not been added as a respondent which is a defect in the appeal.
2. Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee, learned Advocate appears for Ashok Kumar Mukherjee and opposes the prayer for condonation of delay.
3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 646 days in filing the appeal. We find that the appeal has been filed after the municipality had taken steps, as per the order impugned before us. The delay has been explained on the basis of the date of receipt of information with regard to the order passed by the municipality.
4. The appeal is against an order passed by a learned Single Judge on September 23, 2024. We find the order of His Lordship to be innocuous. On the complaint of one, Ashok Kumar Mukherjee that the construction of the appellant was beyond the sanctioned plan, the writ petition was entertained and disposed of. The municipality was directed to take steps in accordance with law and in the event the municipality found any unauthorized construction, proper steps were directed to be taken, upon affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties.
5. We do not find any illegality in the order of His Lordship and, as such, there are no merits in the appeal. In view of our above observation, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 646 days.
6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal and the connected application are also dismissed.
8. We are of the view that the allegations of the appellant with regard to the manner in which the municipality proceeded, gives rise to a fresh cause of action and is beyond the scope of the appeal.
9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
(Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)