08.07.2026 SL No.12 Court No.12 (gc) MAT 2320 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2026 Keshab Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Pronay Basak, Ms. Rajashree Tah, Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty …..for the Appellant. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Ms. Tanusree Ghosh ….for the State. Mr. Uttiya Ray, Mr. Atish Santra ….for the Respondent nos. 5 & 6. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated November 26, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge. The municipality was directed to take steps on the basis of the representation made by Sanjib Chakraborty and others, with regard to an alleged unauthorized construction of Keshab Chakraborty/appellant. 2. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge had erred in recording that, a Coordinate Bench of His Lordship had earlier directed that the municipality should also look into the allegations of Sanjib Chakraborty and others as well. There was no such direction upon the municipality to look into the allegations in respect of the construction of Keshab Chakraborty. 2 3. Under such circumstances, the prayer in the writ petition should not have been allowed on the basis of a misconception of the factual aspects. 4. We are unable to accept Mr. Chattopadhyay’s submission. We find from the records that, by an order dated February 13, 2023, passed in WPA 20341 of 2022, one of the learned Single Judges of the Court had directed that the allegations and counter- allegations of the parties against each other’s constructions, should be decided by the municipality simultaneously, in order to avoid conflicting decisions. The municipality decided the allegations made by Keshab Chakraborty and was silent about the allegation of Sanjib Chakraborty and others, with regard to the construction of Keshab Chakraborty. Thus, Sanjib Chakraborty and others filed the writ petition, in which the impugned order was passed. 5. His Lordship rightly held that, it was the duty of the municipality to follow the order of the earlier learned Single Judge and decide the allegations of both the parties in respect of each other’s constructions. 6. His Lordship rightly directed the municipality to decide on the allegations made by Sanjib Chakrabroty and others, insofar as, the construction of Keshab Chakraborty is concerned. 7. We also find from the records that Sanjib Chakraborty and others have preferred an appeal before the appropriate forum, from the order of the municipality 3 in which the construction of Sanjib Chakraborty and others have been found to be unauthorized. Keshab Chakraborty had sought to be impleaded in the said proceeding and the learned Appellate Court refused to entertain his application for addition of party. A revisional application was filed, being CO 3390 of 2025, which is pending. 8. In the meantime, the municipality has passed an order with regard to the alleged construction of Keshab Chakraborty, thereby, finding the same to be illegal. 9. Under such circumstances, the remedy of the appellant is also before the appropriate forum in terms of Section 218(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act. 10. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of, without any interference with the impugned order and with clarification as above. 11. In the event an appeal is filed by the appellant and the same is admitted by the learned Appellate Court, the appellant will be at liberty to pray for analogous trial of the two matters. 12. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)