In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side 27 15.7.2026 Sc Ct. no.15 Case No. : WPA 15281 OF 2026 In the matter of : Rupali Jotdar …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Debjit Dutta. ….Advocates For the State Respondent: Ms. Sneha Dutta Ms. Snigdha Das. ….Advocates For the Respondent No.5/Private Respondent: Mr. Jaydipta Mandal ….Advocate The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canning, South 24-Parganas on 2nd June, 2026 primarily on the ground that the report of the Pradhan, Chhotomollakhali Gram Panchayat relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Officer has not yet been made over to her. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that in the contempt application, copy of the report was submitted by the alleged contemnor/the Pradhan. Hearing was conducted by the Pradhan in presence of the erstwhile petitioner who was the husband of the present petitioner and the said petitioner participated in the 2 contempt proceeding and was aware of the report submitted by the Pradhan before the Court. Learned counsel for the State draws attention of the Court to the order impugned wherein it is recorded that the petitioner was unable to produce any document in support of her case. Alleging unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner’s husband, Ranajit Jotdar, a representation was made before the Pradhan, Chhotomollakhali Gram Panchayat. The representation was not considered for which the private respondent approached this Court in a Writ Petition being WPA 14077 of 2023. By an order passed on 13th June, 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Pradhan to decide the representation submitted by the private respondent by passing a reasoned order. The order was not complied with for which a contempt application was filed. An affidavit of compliance was submitted by the Pradhan in the contempt application annexing relevant documents which demonstrate that hearing was conducted by the Pradhan in presence of the petitioner’s husband and the private opposite party and upon consideration of the submission made by them, the Pradhan arrived at a conclusion that the construction made by the petitioner was without any sanction/permission from the Panchayat. The Pradhan submitted a report to that effect before the Sub-Divisional 3 Officer, Canning on 18th June, 2025. The said report has been relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the order impugned. The petitioner/her husband was aware of the proceeding all throughout and participated in the same. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted. The petitioner/her husband was unable to produce any document to demonstrate that the construction raised by them was in terms of sanctioned building plan granted in their favour. By the order impugned the Sub-Divisional Officer, upon hearing the parties, declared the construction raised by the petitioner/her husband as unauthorized and recommended demolition/removal of the same. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed a reasoned order upon hearing the parties and the order does not suffer from any illegality/irregularity. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is directed to remove/demolish the unauthorized construction within ten days from date failing which, such demolition be done by the authority in terms of the order impugned. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 4 Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)