11 23.03.2026 sayandeep Ct.3. WPA 10407 of 2025 Tarique Khan Versus The Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Shashwat Nayak Ms. Sidhi Gupta Ms. Lovely Budhia … For the petitioner Mr. Gopal Chandra Das Ms. Ina Bhattacharya … For Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Ld. AGP Ms. Piyali Sengupta Ms. Tuli Sinha … For the State Mr. Saurav Chaudhury … For the respondent nos. 6 and 7. 1. The report filed by the State as also the municipality in Court today are taken on record. From the aforesaid report, it would transpire that the criminal proceedings in furtherance to the complaint case vide Karaya P.S. Case No. 49 dated 28th January, 2015 under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980, against the person responsible for having violated the stop work notice, were proceeded and the same ultimately culminated in a Judgment dated 14th December, 2016 whereunder Md. Salim and Sk. Faruk have been convicted and have been subjected to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. It, however, transpires from the record that a proceedings under Section 400(1) of the said Act had been initiated by the municipal 2 WPA 10407 of 2025 authorities way back in the year 2014 in respect of the unauthorized construction at premises No.2F Radha Gobinda Saha Lane, Kolkata 17. The same is yet to be concluded. At least the report is silent on this regard. 2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having regard thereto, I direct the municipal authorities to take steps in the matter and ascertain whether the proceedings already initiated under Section 400(1) of the said Act has been concluded. If such proceedings has not been concluded to seek for an explanation from the concerned Special Officer Building as to why the proceedings have not been concluded. Based on the response filed by the Special Officer Building, the matter shall be dealt with by the municipality. It is, however, made clear that in the event, the proceeding has remined unconcluded, the matter should be reassigned before any other Special Officer Building for such Special Officer Building to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 3. It is made clear that the outcome of the proceedings if already concluded shall be intimated to the petitioner. In the alternative, if proceedings have not been concluded and the matter is reassigned before any other Special Officer Building, the petitioner 3 WPA 10407 of 2025 shall be given notice of hearing and shall be heard only in support of its complaint of illegal construction. 4. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)