OD- 12 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/833/2025 MD. NAUSHAD ALAM VS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 9th July, 2026 Appearance: Mr. Arif Ali, Adv. Mr. Sarban Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….for the petitioner Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv. Ms. Ananya Das, Adv. …for the KMC Mr. Abhijit Ray, Adv. Mr. Santu Nandy, Adv. …for the respondent no.8 Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Anirban Das, Adv. …for the respondent nos.9 & 10 1. Complaining illegal construction at the premises no.13/H/29, Mayurbhanj Road, Ward No.78, Kolkata – 700 023, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. The Municipality is represented. A report countered signed by the Executive Engineer (C), Building Department, Borough - IX has been filed by the municipality in Court today, the same is taken on record. 3. As per the aforesaid report, a routine inspection has been carried out by the department at the aforesaid premises when it was found that an old occupied eight storied building is existing. Since, the person responsible could not produce any valid documents, the department has issued notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) and the intimation thereof has been served to the jurisdictional police station. It would transpire from the aforesaid report that infringement statement of the unauthorised construction along with demolition sketch has also been prepared, and the 2 WPO/833/2025 matter has been placed before the higher authority for taking a decision in the case of the unauthorised construction under Section 400 of the said Act. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and since the municipality has already taken steps, in my view, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction upon the municipality to bring the proceeding to a logical conclusion on expeditious basis preferably, within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of communication of this order. 5. Since no affidavit is called for the allegation made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) akg/