07.07.2026 Ct. 3 Item No. AD 7 Saswata WPA 14443 of 2026 Nandini Tewari Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Rahul Kumar Saha Mr. Mehnaz Rahaman …For the petitioner Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. D.N.Roy, Ld. GP Mr. Sukanta Ghosh Mr. Arghya Chatterjee …For the State Mr. Atanu Biswas Mr. Mrinal Saha …For the Kalna Municipality 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging a notice / order dated 9th June 2026. The subject matter of the above notice is demolition of unauthorized construction and proceedings under Sections 218, 220 and 223 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) at holding no. 132, ward no. -02, Kalna Purba Bardhaman, Pin : 713409. 2. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 218 of the said Act would submit that the aforesaid order is not in consonance with the provisions of the said Act. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 218, 220 and 223 of the said Act and submits that the Chairman is not competent to pass any order of demolition under the provisions of the said Act. 2 According to him the aforesaid notice / order cannot be enforced insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 3. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the municipality submits that in the instant case, the petitioner was given notice with regard to the inspection that was being carried out at the petitioner’s premises, which is a multi storied building, constructed at holding no. 132 ward no. 2. According to him, in course of joint inspection in presence of Gopal Tewari it was detected that there was unauthorized construction. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the third paragraph of the impugned notice and submits that though the petitioner has been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction, however, in the alternative, the petitioner has also been provided with an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. In the instant case, the petitioner has, however, by notice in writing dated 1st July 2026 (wrongly recorded as 1st June, 2026) indicated that unless the writ petition is disposed of, the proposal as put forward by the respondents in the letter dated 9th June 2026, shall not be considered. 4. Let copies of the documents as placed before this Court by the learned advocate appearing for the Municipality be taken on record. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the municipality has proceeded in the matter to deal with unauthorized construction and also taking into consideration the fact that the letter dated 9th June 2026 is in fact a show cause, I am of the opinion that ordinarily no interference is called for in this matter. However, noting the materials disclosed 3 by the municipality which the petitioner complains, though orally, was not served on the petitioner, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice along with the materials disclosed by the learned advocate appearing for the municipality in Court today. Let such documents be supplied to the petitioner’s advocate 6. Accordingly, time to respond to the show cause stands extended by a period of four weeks from date. In the event, the petitioner responds to the show cause or in the alternative does not respond to the same, the municipality shall take a decision in accordance with law under Section 218 of the said Act and shall bring the proceedings to a logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible preferably within 16 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)