Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21069 (CAL)

RAHANA ALAM v. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

WPA/5243/2025 · 2026-05-13

Raja Basu Chowdhury

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

13.05.2026 DL-69 Ct. No. 03 Srimanta In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 5243 of 2025 Rahana Alam -Vs.- Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi, Ms. Madhurima Sarkar, Ms. Urmi Biswas …for the petitioner. Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Mrs. Sima Chakraborty …for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 1. Affidavit-in-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner would contend that in terms of the liberty reserved by an order dated 27th February, 2024 in WPA/18386/2023 the petitioner has made a representation dated 4th December, 2024 with the prayer to shift the water tap installed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in front of the petitioner’s premises. The above representation is pending consideration before the authorities. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate representing the Municipality would 2 submit that the petitioner despite addressing the representation to several authorities did not address it to the appropriate authority. According to the Municipality, the appropriate authority is Executive Engineer, Water Supply (West) having its address at 212, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata – 700 019. As such, the Municipality could not take any step. 3. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the petitioner had already previously approached this Court and subsequently a representation has been made ordinarily, if such representation was not in order, the Municipality ought to have intimated the petitioner. No such intimation has been forwarded. The petitioner cannot be made to run from pillar to post. Since the respondents are the authorities to decide the same I accordingly direct the concerned respondent authority to decided the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. 3 4. It is expected that the reasoned decision in this regard shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 5. The writ petition being WPA/5243/2025 is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)