25.04.2025. 01 (Suppl. list) Ct.No.654. as WPA 8788 of 2025 (Assigned) Sk. Makbul Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Mr. Anuran Samanta. …for the Petitioner. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated March 4, 2025 and April 3, 2025 being Annexures ‘P-8 and P-10’ respectively to the writ petition. Consequentially, the order dated February 18, 2025 is also under challenge. The petitioner is aggrieved with the finding of the respondent- Municipality that the construction of the premises of which he is the lessee is unauthorized and has been carried on without any plan or permission in respect thereof. The petitioner is also severely aggrieved by the findings of the authority as recorded in the order dated February 18, 2025, inter alia, that such a construction was made without any plan sanctioned and that the petitioner was present at the hearing. The petitioner says that he has never been served with any notice in respect of such hearing and has never attended any such hearing. In fact, the order of demolition of April 3, 2025 is consequential to the aforesaid orders dated February 18, 2025 and March 2 4, 2025. The petitioner also states that the lease deed by virtue whereof the petitioner has been in possession of the concerned premises is a registered lease deed, which is not the subject matter of any proceedings for unauthorized construction. 2. The respondent authorities are unrepresented though Mr. Samanta, learned Advocate-on-record has categorically mentioned that he had personally tried to contact the learned Advocate for the Burdwan Municipality, Mr. Subhasish Bandyopadhyay, who had switched off his phone. Messages have been duly sent by Mr. Samanta to Mr. Subhasish Bandyopadhyay. A affidavit of service has also been filed which is kept on record. 3. This matter has been taken on an urgent basis. 4. From the records there is no evidence that the petitioner had been put on notice of the hearing conducted by the Municipality on 18th February, 2025. The only notice addressed to the petitioner is of 25th February, 2025, being one for cancellation of enlistment certificate of the petitioner, as he had provided insufficient and irrelevant documents in time of submission of the same. However, there is no other notice to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner has relied upon a license, issued in his favour by the department of Health and Family Welfare and Food Safety Standard Authority of India. Ostensibly for the purpose of, at Holding no. 21 Netaji 3 Sangha, R.B. Bose, Parbirhata, Purba Burdwan. The petitioner has been issued such license, which is a trade license since 2024 and as recent as 2025. The Notice of 4th March, 2025 refers to unauthorized constructions made by Netaji Sangha, the owner of the premises carried on in violation of the stop work directions and also proceeds to hold that the petitioner had misguided the concerned office to acquire a trade enlistment, prior to completion of the subject short room. The principle of natural justice require that the petitioner be given an opportunity to explain whether he has made any unauthorized construction at the premise or has made any construction in violation of the ‘stop work’ order was passed by the Municipality. Thus, it would be appropriate at this stage to restrain the respondent Municipality for a limited period of two weeks, within which the Municipality will give a hearing to the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has violated the aforestated stop work order or has made any unauthorized construction thereat. 5. The respondents are restrained by an order of injunction from giving effect to the order dated March 4, 2025 and April 3, 2025 for a period of two weeks. In the meantime, the respondent authorities will give a hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner’s construction is adjudged to be unlawful and without provision, the respondents will be at liberty to 4 proceed with the demolition as made in the respective orders of March 4, 2025 and April 3, 2025. 6. This order will not create any rights in favour of the petitioner beyond the injunction as aforestated for a limited period of fourteen days. 7. Surprisingly, the owner of the premises has not approached this Court seeking any order of restraint on the concerned Municipality. The petitioner is the lessee, running his business therefrom and this order is being made to ensure that the petitioner is not deprived of his livelihood, without being heard. 8. With the aforestated direction, the writ petition being WPA 87989 of 2025 is disposed of. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent Photostat copy of his order be supplied to the learned Advocate for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)