IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO/219/2026 ROWINA NANDINI MEHROTRA AND ANR. VS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. For the Petitioners : Mr. Utpal Bose, Sr.Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Kr. Rai, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Nabanita Manna, Adv. Ms. Vipra Gang, Adv. For the KMC : Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Adv. For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Deepan Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Mobina Ali, Adv. Mr. Samriddha Sen, Adv. For the Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Sunil Kr. Singhania, Adv. Mr. Kalpana Singhania, Adv. For the Respondent No. 12 : Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, Adv. WPO/219/2026 2 For the Respondent No. 13 to 21 : Mr. Pinaki Bhattaharya, Adv. Mr. Somesh Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Das, Adv. Ms. Priti Dutta, Adv. For the State : Mr. N. G. Khaitan, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. Mr. Saptarshi Mondal, Adv. Heard on : 2nd July, 2026 Judgment on : 2nd July, 2026 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.: 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 4to forthwith act in terms of the judgment and order dated 14th September 2023 passed in WPO 1575 of 2023 and to take immediate steps to deal with and remove the unauthorised constructions at premises no.22, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 (hereinafter referred to as “the said premises”). The petitioners have also sought for a direction upon the municipal authorities to demolish and/or remove the unauthorised construction at the ground floor of the aforesaid premises including all illegal enclosures, brick walls and structures raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan. WPO/219/2026 3 2. To consider the matter, it is relevant to note the facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition. 3. The petitioners claim to be the lawful owners as well as the residents of Flat Nos. 401, 402 and Room no.203 in the building situated at the said premises. According to the petitioners, the respondent no.6 is the present owner and/or occupier of the space being Unit No.G-001 situated on the ground floor of the said premises. The petitioners’ case further proceed on the premise that the respondent no.8 was the initial owner of the illegal shop constructed on the ground floor and is also a director of the Varun Mercantile and Credits Private Limited. The petitioners previously complaining illegal and unauthorised construction at the said premises and the failure on the part of the municipal authorities to take appropriate steps moved a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WPO No.1575 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 14th September 2023 by directing the Executive Engineer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take prompt and necessary steps to deal with the unauthorised constructions that had been detected at the subject structure after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties at the earliest. The petitioners’ case is that since the outcome of the proceeding initiated by the municipal authorities was WPO/219/2026 4 not communicated to the petitioners, the petitioners were compelled to file a contempt application being CC 42 of 2025. During the pendency of the contempt proceeding, the order of the Special Officer (Buildings) dated 22nd January 2024 directing removal of the fibre shaded structure was disclosed. According to the petitioners, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 21st July 2025 taking note of the aforesaid, was pleased to hold that the authority had wilfully and deliberately failed to act in strict compliance of the order passed by this Court. The act of the authority was in violation and in complete disregard to the law laid down by the Court and accordingly, held that any order passed contrary to the prescribed and settled law laid down has to be taken as non est in the eye of law. To remedy the wrong that has been caused, one more opportunity was provided to the alleged contemnor who was directed to comply with the order passed by the Court by strictly dealing with the unauthorised constructions as laid down and in accordance with law and in line with the discussions made in such order. The contempt proceeding was adjourned to a subsequent date. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed at the instance of the municipality which was registered as APOT 230 of 2025 from the judgment and WPO/219/2026 5 order dated 21st July 2025 passed in CC 42 of 2025 arising out of WPO 1575 of 2023. 5. The Hon’ble Division Bench, while considering such appeal, was of the view that the first order of the Special Officer (Buildings) was supplied to the writ petitioners/respondents in course of hearing of the contempt proceeding, the second order of the Special Officer (Buildings), as approved by the Mayor-in-Council, was also placed. Following the above, the Hon’ble Division Bench went on to hold that this ought to have normally put an end to the entire writ proceeding and compliance of the final order passed therein. If the writ petitioners/respondents were aggrieved by the decision of the Mayor- in-Council or the Special Officer (Building), there are statutory remedies available to the parties against the said orders before the Municipal Building Tribunal. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Hon’ble Division Bench being in respectful disagreement with the views of the learned Single Bench that any subsequent action of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation after disposal of the writ petition and in compliance of the final order passed thereunder can at all form part of the subject matter of the contempt proceeding, allowed the appeal and adjourned the contempt proceeding being CC 42 of 2025. Following the above, the contempt petition was dismissed by the learned Single WPO/219/2026 6 Judge. The writ petitioners, however, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No(s) 68057 of 2025, challenging the aforesaid direction. By an order dated 27th January 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition against the dismissal of the contempt application, however, observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to adopt such remedies as may be permissible in law. 6. Subsequent thereto, the instant writ petition was filed on 6th May 2026, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities, particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, to forthwith act in terms of the Judgment and Order dated 14th September, 2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.O No. 1575 of 2023 and take immediate steps to deal with and remove the unauthorized constructions at premises no. 22, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020; (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to demolish and/or remove the unauthorized construction at the ground floor (G-001) of the said premises, including all illegal enclosures, brick walls and structures raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan; WPO/219/2026 7 (c) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to take immediate steps to stop and prevent any further unauthorized construction, demolition, alteration or change of use at the said premises; (d) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to restore the said premises to its original sanctioned condition, particularly the ground floor as an entrance lobby and car parking space without any enclosure; (e) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to forthwith take steps to stop and discontinue the unauthorized change of use of the premises from residential to commercial, including but not limited to use of the 2nd and 3rd floors as office/commercial spaces and unauthorized construction in the entrance lobby of the said premises; (f) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to seal and/or close down all portions of the premises being used for unauthorized commercial purposes, including establishments, companies offices, and/or business activities by Respondent No. 13 to 22 operating in violation of the sanctioned plan; WPO/219/2026 8 (g) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to restore the user of the premises strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan, and to ensure that no portion of the building, except as sanctioned, is used for commercial purposes; (h) Issue a writ of Certiorari calling for all records pertaining to the alleged regularization and/or proceedings under Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and quash and set aside any order or decision purporting to regularize the unauthorized construction and/or change of use at the said premises; (i) Issue a writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari directing the Respondent Authorities to withdraw, cancel and/or set aside any purported regularization, permission, approval or tacit sanction granted in respect of the unauthorized change of use of the premises from residential to commercial, including but not limited to the use of the 2nd and 3rd floors for office/commercial purposes and the conversion of the entrance lobby at the ground floor into a restaurant, and to treat the same as illegal and non est in the eye of law; (j) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to refrain from granting any license, WPO/219/2026 9 permission or approval for commercial use of the premises in violation of the sanctioned plan; (k) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 5, Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station, to ensure strict vigil and provide necessary police assistance for implementation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court andto prevent any further illegal activities at the said premises; (l) Pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct a fresh inspection of the said premises and submit a detailed report before this Hon'ble Court with regard to: (i) unauthorized constructions; (ii) change of use; (iii) structural safety and stability of the building; (m) Pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to take immediate steps against all unauthorized commercial establishments, companies and entities operating from the said premises without requisite permissions and licenses; (n) Issue appropriate directions upon the Respondent Authorities to take action in accordance with law against the erring officials, who have failed to discharge their statutory duties and have acted in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court; WPO/219/2026 10 (o) Pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and their men, agents and assigns from carrying out any construction, alteration or commercial activity at the ground floor of the said premises; (p) Pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to ensure compliance of fire safety norms and structural safety requirements and not to permit any use of the premises without statutory clearances; (q) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; (r) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, their men, agents and assigns from carrying out any further construction, alteration, renovation or change of use in respect of the said premises; (s) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9, their men, agents and assigns from use or further use of the unauthorized construction on the ground floor of the said premises in any manner whatsoever; (t) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to forthwith stop all ongoing commercial activities at the said premises; WPO/219/2026 11 (u) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order directing the Respondent No. 5, Officer-in- Charge, Ballygunge Police Station, to provide immediate police assistance and maintain strict vigil at the said premises; (v) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order directing the Respondent Authorities to conduct an immediate inspection and file a status. report before this Hon'ble Court; (w) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order restraining all Respondents and occupants from using any portion of the premises for commercial purposes in violation of the sanctioned plan; (x) Pending disposal of the present writ petition, pass an order of status quo with regard to the nature, character and use of the said premises; (y) Award costs of and incidental to this application; (z) Pass such further and/or other order or orders be passed, direction or directions be given as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 7. In the writ petition there is no challenge to the order passed by Special Officer (Buildings) which has since been approved by the Mayor-in- Council by an order dated 23rd June 2025. WPO/219/2026 12 8. Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate representing the writ petitioners, at the very outset, would submit that notwithstanding the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court arriving at a finding that there is an illegal construction in the said premises, the municipal authorities failed to remove the same. He further submits that the illegal construction in the ground floor of the said premises has not been regularized by the Special Officer (Buildings) and that the municipal authorities are bound to remove such unauthorised construction. While responding to the query as to whether any appeal has been filed from the order passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) which incidentally has not been disclosed in the writ petition, it is submitted that the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 400(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 before the Municipal Building Tribunal is not available to the petitioners having regard to the judgment delivered in the case of Bijay Biswakarma v. Rajkumari Devi Singh & Ors., (2024 CHC-AS:1541-DB) dated 28th June 2024. Mr. Bose has also placed before this Court the finding returned by the learned Co- ordinate Bench while dealing with the contempt application, as also the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. According to him, it is the obligation of the municipal authority to WPO/219/2026 13 remove the illegal construction noted by the learned Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 14th September, 2023. 9. He submits that in any event apart from removing the fiber, covering fiber shaded structure, the structure itself which is on the ground floor has not been removed. In the facts noted hereinabove, this Court should interfere and issue appropriate direction upon the municipal authority to take steps in this regard. 10. Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar, learned Advocate appears for the respondent no. 12 and has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Bose and supports the petitioners’ cause. 11. The municipality is represented by Mr. Aloke Kumar Ghosh. He would submit that demolition proceeding had already been initiated by the municipality on the basis of the directions passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 14th September, 2023. Such proceeding has reached to a logical conclusion when the Mayor-in-Council by its resolution dated 23rd June, 2025 had approved the order passed by the Special Officer (Buildings). Such order by the Special Officer (Buildings) is now subject matter of an appeal. According to him, the issue of the validity of the order is being considered by the Municipal Building Tribunal and at this stage, no interference is called for. In any event, he would submit that the WPO/219/2026 14 petitioners are not remediless. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has granted liberty to approach before the Municipal Building Tribunal. 12. Mr. Deepan Sarkar, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 6 would submit that the respondent no.6 has been carrying on the business from the shop room which his predecessor had purchased. The same comprising of 750 sq.ft. of super built up area on the ground floor is a commercial space being no. G-001. According to him, the petitioners’ predecessor had transferred the said space by a deed of conveyance dated 15th May, 2014 unto and in favour of the Varun Mercantile and Credits Private Limited, the respondent no. 6’s predecessor in title, herein, being all that unit/commercial space being no. G-001 on the ground floor of the said premises. The said commercial space is used for restaurant purpose. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a deed of conveyance dated 15th May, 2014. According to him the structure which was directed to be removed by the Special Officer (Buildings) could not be removed by reasons of the objection raised by the petitioners. 13. He has further submitted that in the facts of the case, no interference is called for. WPO/219/2026 15 14. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, I find that previously, at the instance of the petitioners, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order dated 14th September, 2023, by directing the Executive Engineer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take prompt and necessary steps to deal with the unauthorised constructions that had been detected at the subject structure after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties at the earliest. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the municipal authorities had dealt with the unauthorized construction, however, since the Kolkata Municipal Corporation had not apprised the petitioners of the developments, the petitioners had approached this Court. During the pendency of such contempt proceedings before the Co-ordinate Bench, the municipal authority has disclosed the order passed by the Special Officer (Buildings) which was approved by the Mayor-in-Council by its order dated 23rd June, 2025. 15. Since, the learned Judge did not accept the same and had issued further directions, the municipality had filed an appeal. The Hon’ble Appeal Court by its order dated 25th August, 2025 was of the view that once, the order of the Special Officer (Buildings) had been supplied to the petitioners in course of hearing of contempt proceeding as WPO/219/2026 16 approved by the Mayor-in-Council, the matter ought to have been put to an end and the petitioners were at liberty to avail the statutory remedy. The petitioners did not avail of such remedy despite having not succeeded upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. I find that Mr. Bose, learned senior Advocate representing the petitioners by relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bijay Biswakarma (supra) has tried to hold out that the Division Bench of this Court in the above judgment having given a restrictive meaning to the words ‘any person aggrieved’ as appearing in Section 400(3) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for preferring an appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal and having restricted the same only to the person responsible, the petitioners as complainants have no right to approach the Tribunal, and as such has approached this Court. 17. Having considered such submissions, I find that the question that fell for consideration in the appeal pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench was the right to prefer an appeal against a demolition order passed by the municipal authority and not against an order of regularization. From the observations made in the above judgment, which are only in relation to a demolition order passed under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the said WPO/219/2026 17 judgment, in my view, does not interfere with the rights of the petitioners to challenge the regularization order. It is well-settled that a judgment is an authority for what it decides and not, what can be deduced therefrom as a slight variance in facts may alter the outcome. In any event the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court having granted liberty to the petitioners and such liberty having not been interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that this Court which is bound by the directions passed by both, the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, finds no scope to pass further directions for implementation of any order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench or for demolition of unauthorized construction contrary to the order of regularisation, when the validity of such order is under consideration before the Municipal Building Tribunal. 18. There is, however, another aspect of the matter. Since it has now surfaced from the submission made by the parties that the respondent no. 6 has not yet removed the fibre shaded structure in terms of the order passed by the Special Officer (Building), though the fiber covering the shed has been removed, ordinarily, the municipal authority ought to have taken appropriate steps to ensure compliance of such direction. However, since at this stage, the advocate for the respondent no.6 on instructions would submit that the respondent no.6 shall WPO/219/2026 18 remove the frames supporting the shed (structure) and undertakes to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to be filed by the respondent no. 6 within a period of two weeks with the municipal authorities, undertaking to remove the same within two weeks thereafter, I am of the view that the municipality must wait for two weeks. Failing submission of the affidavit and the compliance of the undertaking as noted, the municipal authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps for removal of such structure. 19. It must also be recorded that as against the submissions made by Mr. Deepan Sarkar representing the respondent no. 6, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have no objection if the fibre shaded structure is removed. 20. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) S.Seal