1 WPA 15334 of 2026 D/L 21 14.07.2026 Rohit,A.R.(Ct) ct.no.3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRITJURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 15334 of 2026 Dr. Haridas Das Adhikari Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta Mr. Baibhav Roy Ms. Sinjini Chakraborty Mr. Arindam Shit Ms. Anushka Dasgupta …for the Petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. A.A.G Mr. Arkaprava Sen Ms. Kanika Gupta …for the State Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Mr. A. Dey …for the KMC Mr. Satyajit Talukder Mr. Arindam Chatterjee …for the KMDA/Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 1. Complaining in effect threat of ouster from Shop no. S-19 under Bijon Setu, Kasba, vide notice dated 27th June, 2026, the writ petition was filed. 2. On 3rd July, 2020 when the writ petition was taken up for consideration, this Court was pleased to pass the following order, the relevant portion whereof is extracted hereinbelow. “1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the notice dated 27th June, 2 WPA 15334 of 2026 2026, issued by the municipal authority which the petitioner claims to have been pasted upon the outer wall of the petitioner’s clinic situated at Shop No. S-19 under Bijon Setu, Kasba, Kolkata – 700019. 3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate representing the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the certificate of enlistment issued by the municipal authority as also the letter dated 29th August, 1990 of the petitioner addressed to the Officer on Special Duty, Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) seeking permissive possession of a room at Bijon Setu. The purport of the aforesaid letter would show that the petitioner having come to learn from the Estate Department that a room at Bijon Setu has been allotted in his favour, has requested the concerned officer to pass necessary order so as to provide him with permissive possession of the shop room and that he is agreeable to pay the rent as will be fixed by the CIT. There appears to be a certificate of endorsement made on the aforesaid letter, such endorsement, in fact, required ad hoc deposit of Rs.1000/- to be made. The endorsement is dated 29th August, 1990. There are other endorsements appearing on the said letter. In furtherance to the aforesaid, the petitioner claims to have deposited the aforesaid sum and in support thereof, the receipt issued by the CIT authority dated 29th August, 1990, in favour of the petitioner has been disclosed. This apart, the certificate issued by the Estate Manager, CIT, dated 29th November, 1990 has also been disclosed certifying that the petitioner of Block – I, Flat 3, Lake Gardens, Govt. Housing Estate, Sultan Alam Road, Calcutta has been allotted shop no.S-19 in CIT Scheme at Kasba. There are other letters which have been annexed to the writ petition including certain other receipts issued by the authorities of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA), which the petitioner claims to be the successor- in-interest of the erstwhile CIT. By placing the aforesaid documents, Mr. Bhattacharya, would contend in the facts noted hereinabove, since the petitioner has a right to retain possession of the aforesaid shop room, the petitioner cannot be evicted without due process of law and that too by a public notice issued by the municipal authority. He also seeks to impeach the said 3 WPA 15334 of 2026 notice on the ground that by such notice, none can be evicted. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He submits that only upon appropriate disclosure made by the KMDA that the municipality can take further steps. 5. The State is represented by the learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that the State has initiated steps ensuring safety and security of the flyovers and bridges in the city of Kolkata. Most of the spaces beneath the flyovers and bridges have been unauthorisedly encroached. In the instant case, till such time an appropriate disclosure is made by the KMDA as regards the status of the petitioner, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. In any event, the public notice issued by the municipality cannot be permitted to be challenged by the petitioner. The challenge, if any, should be restricted to the petitioner’s occupation of the shop room only. Such notice applies for the unauthorized occupants and if, the petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant, the petitioner should not be bothered with such notice. 6. Mr. Talukder, learned advocate appears for the KMDA. He is directed to take appropriate instruction in the matter and file a report in the form of an affidavit on the returnable date, especially with regard to the claim of the petitioner regarding the occupancy right of the petitioner in respect of the Shop No. S-19 under Bijon Setu. 7. The municipality is, however, directed to carry out an inspection of the shop room in question and file a detailed report along with photographs on or before the matter is taken up next. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the prima facie case made out, I am of the view that till the matter is taken up next or until 17th July, 2026, status quo as regards the possession, nature and character, in respect of the petitioner’s shop room shall be maintained. 9. It is made clear that the above order shall not stand in the way of the State taking appropriate steps for securing superstructure of the bridge in accordance with law. It is also made clear that though this Court has not stayed the notice 4 WPA 15334 of 2026 dated 27th June, 2026, the aforesaid notice shall not be enforced insofar as the petitioner’s shop room is concerned. 10. Let this matter appear for further consideration under the same heading on 14th July, 2026.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the KMDA has also filed a report. The report filed by the KMDA in the form of an affidavit in Court affirmed by Alok Kumar Patra in his capacity as Estate Manager, KIT Wing of KMDA on 13th July, 2026 be taken on record. In the aforesaid report the deponent has acknowledged that the petitioner has deposited monthly occupational charges to the tune of Rs.947.25 per month on 9th July, 2025 for a period from January, 2025 till July, 2025. 4. It has however, been stated in such report that the relevant allotment file concerning the subject shop room being No. S-19 under Bijon Setu could not be traced. Though the factum of such shop room, belonging to the erstwhile Kolkata Improvement Trust (KIT) and the subsequent merger with the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority with effect from 20th April, 2017 situated under the viaduct of Bijon Setu has not been denied. 5. It has further been stated in such report that between 1980 to 1990, erstwhile KIT had 5 WPA 15334 of 2026 allotted a number of shop rooms situated under the Bijon Setu and the petitioner is one of such allottees who appears to have been allotted the shop room on ad hoc basis with permissive possession, and no formal agreement, either lease or license was ever executed between the erstwhile KIT and the petitioner herein. 6. The report filed by the Municipality is however,a little more elaborate in identifying the occupants in the underbelly of the bridge Bijon Setu. The same has been counter signed by the Executive Engineer (Civil/Br-VIII). The same gives a pictorial representation of the shop rooms under the bridge Bijon Setu. The name of the occupants in respect of the relevant shop rooms have also been identified. Let a copy of the aforesaid report be taken on record. 7. At the outset, Mr. Talukder, learned advocate representing the respondent nos. 5 & 6 has submitted, by placing before this Court the letter dated 13th July, 2026, that he has been directed by the competent authority of the KMDA to seek for an accommodation before this Court for four weeks till the process of handing over of all documents by him to the 6 WPA 15334 of 2026 KMDA is completed. Let a copy of the aforesaid communication issued by the KMDA be taken on record. Accordingly he has sought for an adjournment. This Court has however refused the adjournment. 8. This Court is of the view that having regard to the affidavit filed by the KMDA, there is no scope to adjourn the matter. 9. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General and Senior Advocate would submit that the occupation of the petitioner in respect of shop room no.S-19 is only a permissive possession as would appear from the materials available on record. He submits that the writ petition is confined to shop room being No. S-19 and as such the report filed by the Municipal authority should also be confined to such shop room. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 29 Clause (g) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) and would submit that it is the obligation of the Municipality to remove the obstructions and projections in or upon the streets, bridges and other public places, and having regard thereto, the steps taken by the Municipality 7 WPA 15334 of 2026 cannot be faulted. He further submits that the State has taken a policy to keep the underbelly of the bridges and fly-overs free to avoid damage to the strategic infrastructure of the State. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that at this stage, the petitioner has been able to prima facie establish before this Court that the petitioner is entitled to remain in permissive occupation in so far as shop room No. S-19 under the bridge Bijon Setu is concerned, which is also supported by the affidavit of the Estate Manager of KMDA, and since the municipality has also in its report counter signed by the Executive Engineer found the presence of the petitioner in shop room no. S-19, I am of the view that the petitioner’s possession should not be disturbed without due process of law. The aforesaid order should however, not interfere with the right of the State or the municipality to discharge their statutory obligations as provided under the statute. To reiterate, it is stated that the above order shall not stand in the way of the State taking appropriate steps for securing the super structure of the bridge 8 WPA 15334 of 2026 in accordance with law and the interference in the matter is qua the petitioner only. 11. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take inspection of the copies of the reports as filed by the parties in Court today. 12. Accordingly, WPA 15334 of 2026 stands disposed of. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)