AD 37 20.07.2026 sayandeep Ct.3. WPA 9713 of 2026 Rinki Roy Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Tanushree Dasgupta ….. for the KMC Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Tapas Sil ….. for the State Mr. Syed E. Huda Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick Mr. SK Aptabuddin ….. for the Added respondents 1. Complaining illegal construction at the behest of the private respondent No. 7 in the form of an encroachment of water body at premises No. 219, Picnic Garden Road, Mouza-Bondel JL No. 16, C.S. Khatian Nos. 1608 and 1703 CS Dag Nos. 96, 97, 105 and 106 respectively in ward No. 67 under the KMC and the failure on the part of the municipal authorities to resist the illegal construction, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. When the matter came up for consideration, this Court also noted that the application being CAN 1 of 2026 has been filed by one of the co-owners of the property. According to the applicant, the said co-owner had authorized the respondent No. 7 to carry out the development work. In the peculiar facts, since the applicant in CAN 1 of 2026 had 2 WPA 9713 of 2026 claimed to have authorized the person responsible to execute the work, the application being CAN 1 of 2026 was allowed. This Court further noting the submissions made by the petitioner and the photographs appearing at page- 32 and 33 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 7 has attempted to fill up the water body and was carrying out new and illegal construction work, had directed the municipality to file a report by carrying out an inspection at the locale. Today, the report has been filed by the municipality. 3. Mr. Huda, learned advocate representing the added respondent would submit that no fresh inspection has been carried out. 4. Having regard to the above, I find from the report of the executive engineer dated 14th July, 2026 that the municipality had determined that the construction work as was going on, was without any valid sanctioned plan. A stop work notice has already been issued by the department under Section 401 of the KMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 21st September, 2024. The police intimation in respect thereof, was also forwarded to the local police station. Subsequently, a demolition proceeding was initiated and the authority has approved action under Section 400(8) for demolishing unauthorized construction. 3 WPA 9713 of 2026 5. Having regard to the disclosure made and the report filed, I am of the view, nothing survives in the writ petition for consideration especially when the writ petition was filed for compelling the municipality to take appropriate action. 6. Though, Mr. Huda, learned advocate representing the added respondent would submit that there is a dispute with regard to the identification of the property and as such the report should not be taken into consideration, I am of the view, since an order has already been passed under Section 400(8) of the said Act, there is no scope for this Court to continue with the writ proceedings any further, especially when there is no independent challenge to such an order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by leaving it open to the municipal authorities to enforce the order passed under Section 400(8) of the said Act, in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)