RICHARD RAPHAEL v. BIDHANNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
WPA/515/2026 · 2026-02-25
Raja Basu Chowdhury
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1104 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1104 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
23. 25.02.2026. Court No.03. (Pritam)
WPA 515 of 2026.
Richard Raphael.
-Vs.-
Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Supratic Roy, Mr. Subhamay Patra, Mr. Joydeep Mishra.
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Ratul Das, Mr. Shohom Sanyal, Mr. Ashutosh Singh.
.....for the respondent no.4.
Mr. Sirsanya Badyopadhyay, Mr. Tirthankar Dey, Mr. Arka Kr. Nag.
....for the BMC.
1. Although this writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for implementation of the order dated 26th February, 2024 passed in WPA 13020/2023 and for demolition of the unauthorized pucca construction at the premises, Space Town Complex, Block-4 and Block- 1 under Flat Nos.1D and 1C and 1M and 1N, VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Baguiati, West Bengal-700 059, the learned advocate for the municipality would submit that the petitioner, on the one hand, has filed a contempt petition and on the other hand, is seeking implementation of the above order by filing this writ petition.
2
2. The respondent no.4, on the other hand, by placing before this Court a communication dated 19th February, 2026 would submit that in furtherance to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 26th February, 2024, the municipality had already proceeded and has passed an order dated 19th February, 2026, thereby observing that the prayer for renewal and/or demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction of the community halls at the ground floor of the premises Space Town Complex, Block-4 and Block-1 under Flat Nos.1D and 1C and 1M and 1N, VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Baguiati, West Bengal-700 059 and for restoration of the same to its original position, cannot be acceded to and the proceedings have thus been concluded.
3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find that the aforesaid order is not the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.
4. Independent to the above, since the petitioner has already filed a contempt proceeding, I am not inclined to entertain the same.
5. The petition, thus, stands dismissed.
6. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied upon compliance of all formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)