09.07.2026 Item No.11 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra WPA (P) 277 of 2026 Tausif Iqbal - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Wasim Reza ….for the petitioner Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar , Mr. Milind Mohul Ghosh …..for the State Mr. Sandipan Banerjee ….for the Howrah Municipal Corporation Mr. Abhisek Banerjee, Mr. Subhajit Chattopadhyay, Ms. Ishika Khan Ms. Afifa Khan ….for the respondent nos.7 to 9 Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Arghya Mullick ….for the respondent no.10 The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary directions upon ‘the respondent nos. 1 to 6, to restrain the private respondent nos. 7 to 11 and their men and agents, servants, subordinates, employees and/or assignees from carrying out any further construction or occupying the said G+6 building at premises No.23, Madar Tala Lane, Pilkhana, Howrah-711101, and further more direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to perform their duties as levied upon them under Section 174 and 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, including the issuance of an order of stoppage of construction and initiation of demolition proceedings against the said illegal G+6 building’. Mr. Reza, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for leave to implead the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Howrah Municipal Corporation (in short, HMC) as a party respondent to the present writ petition. Such prayer is considered and allowed. The learned advocate-on-record is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the petition. As Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate has already entered appearance on behalf of HMC and as he can appear on behalf of the added respondent, further service of a copy of the writ petition upon the added respondent is dispensed with. Mr. Reza submits that upon the land in question at premises no. 23, Madar Tala Lane, Pilkhana, Howrah- 711101 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), a G+6 building has been constructed without obtaining any sanction from HMC. The building, presently, is in dilapidated condition and there is every possibility that it may collapse causing irreparable loss to the occupiers and tenants residing in the said building. The persons residing in the 2 locality would also suffer moreso when the said building also encroaches upon the road adjacent to the said premises. Protesting against such illegal construction and encroachment, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the authorities of HMC on 20th May, 2026 but the same had not been responded to. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court. When the matter was last taken up for hearing on 22nd June, 2026, the learned advocate appearing for HMC was directed to avail necessary instruction. Today, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for HMC submits that an inspection was conducted on 2nd July, 2026 and places before this Court an inspection report wherein it has been observed inter alia, as follows: • Construction has been carried out in the building at up to 6th floor level. The building is completed. The building is fully occupied. 1st floor to 6th floor are being used for residential purposes. Ground floor is being used for partly residential and partly commercial purpose. • Constructed area at ground floor to 5th floor each more or less =185.628 Sq.m. • Constructed area at 6th floor each more or less =168.268 Sq.m. • Sanctioned area at 6th floor =Nil •Area of stair head room =7.92 Sq.m. • Total unauthorized area at ground to 6th floor more or less = 1289.956 Sq.m.’ Mr. Abhisek Banerjee and Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocates enter appearance on behalf of the 3 respondent nos.7 to 9 and respondent no.10 respectively. They strenuously argue that there is an acrimonious relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent no.10 and, accordingly, the PIL has been preferred. In view thereof, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner’s private interest is involved in the matter and, accordingly, the PIL itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed for extraneous and ulterior motives. In support of such contention, Mr. Chakraborty has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., reported in (2010) 3SCC 402. Mr. Sandipan Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the HMC submits that the construction which has been raised on the sixth floor of the building, is unauthorised. The remaining portion of the building has been constructed in deviation to the original sanction plan and in contravention of the statutory provisions. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the inspection report, as placed before this Court, it cannot be ruled out that in view of the deviations and for construction of an additional 4 unauthorised floor, there is a threat perception that the entire building may collapse. In view thereof, the issue needs to be relegated for consideration to the competent authority of HMC. Answering our query, Mr. Banerjee submits that the respondent no.12 would be the competent authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.12 to take appropriate steps in terms of Section 177 of the HMC Act pertaining to the unauthorised construction of the sixth floor of the building and the deviations, as pointed out in the report dated 8th July, 2026, as placed before this Court, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties. The respondent no.12 shall take a final decision and communicate the same to the parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 5 6