21.04.2026 Ct. 3 Item No. ML 56 & 674 sayandeep WPA 1930 of 2025 Khidderpore Abhiyan Club & Anr. Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. With WPA 17382 of 2025 Prem Chand Jaiswal Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Amit Gupta Ms. Debangana Dey Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta ….. for the petitioner in WPA 1930 of 2025 Mr. Anirban Roy Mr. Debjit Basu …. For the petitioner in WPA 17382 of 2025 Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh Ms. Manisha Nath …For the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in both the matters Mr. Anirban Roy Mr. Debjit Basu …. For the respondent No. 7 in WPA 1930 of 2025 Mr. Bhupendra Ray Ms. Kanchan Roy …. For the respondents in WPA 17382 of 2025 1. The present writ petition being WPA 1930 of 2025 has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 10th January, 2025 passed by the Executive Engineer (C), KMC, Borough-IX. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 is a club and had been involved in the Government sponsored ICDS project. According to the petitioners, the club has been used as a Polio vaccination Center in the past. 2 The petitioners also claim to be performing Durga Puja and is regularly getting grants for organizing Durga Puja from the Government. From the records of the case, I, find that one Prem Chand Jaiswal had filed a writ petition being WPA 1661 of 2024 before this Court complaining inaction on the part of the municipal authorities in relation to non-removal of the unauthorized construction over the footpath as the same interfered with the egress and ingress of the complainant’s premises wherein weighbridge facilities are available. On the above writ petition being moved, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th September, 2024, had directed the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 upon hearing the parties to pass a reasoned order and to communicate the same to the parties. It appears that the Eecutive Engineer (C), SWML KMC had since requested the D.G.(Civil) to take appropriate steps in the matter as the SWM department could only provide logistic support. Following the above, the matter was placed before D.G.(Civil). The matter was thereafter delegated to the Executive Engineer (C), Borough-IX for consideration and following the aforesaid, the Executive Engineer(C) Borough-IX has passed and order and directed for removal of the structure in the form of encroachment at 49/2/G, Karl Marx Sarani, South Port Police Station, Kolkata 7000023, since the same is causing obstruction to the weighbridge facilities. The aforesaid matter is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The petitioners in the 3 present petition have however, failed to disclosed any document to establish any authority to occupy a public premises and/or footpath in front of 49/2/G, Karl Marx Sarani, South Port Police Station, Kolkata 700023. Though the learned advocate for the petitioner would raise the issue of jurisdiction, I find that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants who have also failed to establish any right to retain unauthorized and illegal possession. The petitioners can have no right to block the access to the weighbridge. The Executive Engineer Borough IX who passed the order had the competence to pass the order dated 10th January, 2025 as such the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. In Re: WPA 17382 of 2025 2. Insofar as WPA 17382 of 2025 is concerned, I find that the said writ petition has been filed for implementation of the order dated 10th January, 2025. Noting that the club has been illegally occupying the footpath and front portion of the premises No. 49/2/G, Karl Marx Sarani, South Port Police Station, Kolkata 700023. 3. Though Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the private respondent, at this stage, would contend that the private respondent is yet to be served with the writ petition, however, considering the affidavit- of-service filed in Court today, I find that the 4 aforesaid writ petition has been duly served on the private respondent. 4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate further tries to raise an objection that the footpath belongings to the Kolkata Port Trust and as such the corporation should not have passed any order. I find that the aforesaid objection raised by Mr. Roy, is entirely unfounded. None can be permitted to occupy the footpath especially when Mr. Roy has not been able to show a scrap of paper to establish its right of occupancy . There is no irregularity in the order. 5. Further noting that the above issue has already been decided, nothing survives in the present writ petition save and except directing the police authorities to act in tandem with the municipal authorities to ensure that the order dated 10th January, 2025 is implemented. It is however, starkling to note that the above order has remained outstanding for more than a year. Accordingly, it is expected that the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps and implement the same in accordance with law on expeditious basis preferably within 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 17382 of 2025 is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)