OD-3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE APO/68/2022 With WPO/903/2022 THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. -Versus- M/s. G. K. SONI HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. Present : The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak -And- The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi For the Applicant : Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv. : Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. J. D. Roy, Adv. Ms. Geetika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Jogendra Pandey, Adv. Ms. Champa Pal, Adv. HEARD ON : 27.02.2025, 27.03.2025 DELIVERED ON : 27.03.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Appeal is at the behest of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and its functionaries and directed against an order dated June 21, 2022 passed in WPO/903/2022. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the premises involved in the writ petition was declared as a heritage building and was included in the list of heritage properties pending gradation. He submits that, inclusion of the premises namely, premises No.34, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata in the list of heritage building was done in accordance with law. He contends that Kolkata Municipal 2 Corporation Act, 1980 provides mechanism for de-listing of building included in the list of heritage building. He submits that, in the event as claimed by the writ petitioners, the building was improperly included in the list of heritage building, then also, the statutory provisions enshrined in the Act of 1980 provides speedy, efficacious, alternative remedy to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner should avail of such remedies prior to approaching the High Court. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon a judgment and order dated July 16, 2018 passed in WPO/146/2010 (Purti West Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.), and the judgment and order dated August 29, 2024 passed in APO/3/2020 (ASL West Enclave Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) being an appeal from the single Judge’s judgment and order dated July 16, 2018 passed in Purti West Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra). 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the Division Bench in WPO/74/2020 (Hillman Developers (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) passed an order dated February 11, 2025 noticing that the writ petitioner therein sought for cancellation of the list of heritage building (pending). The Division Bench directed such writ petitioner to avail of the statutory remedies as noted in the judgment and order dated January 9, 2025 passed in WPA/12676/2019 [INTACH (India National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) & Anr. Vs. Stage of West Bengal & Ors.). He draws the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated August 29, 2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in APO/86/2023 (Chandra Udyog & Anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.) and submits that, a similar mechanism was devised by the co- 3 ordinate Bench for a decision as to de-listing of a building included in the list of heritage properties of the KMC. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits, on instruction, that in the event the Court is pleased to set aside the order impugned in the present appeal, then the Court should direct the Heritage Conservation Committee to consider the representation of the writ petitioners for de-listing of premises no.34, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata from the list of heritage building as expeditiously as possible after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, by a reasoned order to be communicated to the writ petitioner. 6. Premises no.34, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata was included in the list of heritage building. The writ petitioner approached the writ Court by way of WPO/903/2022 seeking a direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to de-list such building from the list of heritage building. 7. INTACH (supra) noticed the statutory provisions enshrined in the Act of 1980 which provided for a mechanism for deciding an application for de-listing of a property included in the list of heritage building. It proceeded to direct implementation of the statutory provisions. 8. Prior to INTACH (supra) being rendered, Purti West Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) upheld by the Division Bench in ASL West Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) were of the same view and required the writ petitioners therein to avail of the remedies provided under the Act of 1980. Similar view was also expressed in Hillman Developers (P) Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and Chandra Udyog & Anr. (supra). 9. Writ Courts are slow to interfere where there exists a statutory alternative remedy which is speedy and efficacious. 4 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that there is a expert body named as the Building Conservation Committee established under the provisions of the Act, 1980 to consider and decide the issues with regard to the listing and de-listing of heritage building in the city of Kolkata. The Act of 1980 provides for mechanism for such decision to be rendered by the Heritage Conservation Committee. 11. In the such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside by permitting the writ petitioners before us to avail of the statutory alternative remedy under the Act, 1980 before the heritage conservation committee. The Heritage Conservation Committee will decide the representation of the writ petitioner and the issue of de- listing of premises No.34, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Kolkata from the list of heritage building in accordance with law. In doing so, no doubt, the Heritage Conservation Committee will afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It will pass a reasoned order which it will communicate to the writ petitioner forthwith thereafter. It will also comply with the directions of INTACH (supra) as far as applicable. 12. The representation be made by the writ petitioner within seven days from date. On receipt of the representation, the Heritage Conservation Committee will endeavour to dispose of the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of the same. 13. Accordingly, APO/68/2022 is dismissed along with all connected applications are disposed of without any order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) 14. I agree. (MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.) A/s.