30.07.2026 Ct. No. 17 Sl. No. 6 RANJAN MAT 11 of 2026 IA NO.CAN/1/2026 KAMAL BANDHOPADHYAY & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Oishik Chatterjee ......for the appellants Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta Ms. Tanusree Ghosh Ms. Madhurima Basu ......for the State Mr. Soumyajit Bhatta ......for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 Md. Sanwar Jahan Ms. Tapati Sarkar Ms. Shalini Sen Ms. Sahina Pervin ...for the respondent no. 7 The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioners is directed against an order dated 11.12.2025 dismissing the writ petition and imposing costs. Briefly, the writ petitioners had filed this petition seeking directions for expeditious disposal of a pending application for grant of sanction of a Building Plan pertaining to Holding No. 172, Mouza- Panihati, J.L. No. 10, P.S.-Kharda which is lying pending with the respondent Municipality. Upon the said writ petition being moved, the interveners had appeared and relied on diverse orders passed in respect of the self-same premises. 2 It was contended on behalf of the interveners that there has been gross suppression and misrepresentation by the appellants and the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant had no opportunity to deal with the documents and submissions relied on by the interveners. There was no suppression of any material facts. The parties had not filed any pleadings and the matter ought not to have been dismissed in a summary manner. In such circumstances, the order inasmuch as it directs the petitioners to pay costs is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the interveners, it is submitted that though the writ petition was filed in abuse of process they have no objection if the impugned order inasmuch as it directs costs is set aside. On behalf of the Municipality, it is submitted that there is no functional Board of the Municipality and steps would be taken for expeditious disposal of the application for sanction plan. It is also contended on behalf of the Municipality that in respect of the very same premises there has been a demolition order and numerous litigations have been filed in respect thereof. Ordinarily, an Appellate Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court 3 unless there is perversity or illegality or contravention of any law. In the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has admittedly passed the impugned order without exchange of affidavits. The issue whether the suppression was material or not has not been gone into. No opportunity was granted to the appellants to controvert the allegations of the intervenor. In such circumstances, the impugned order only to the extent that it directs the petitioners/appellants to pay costs is set aside. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that he does not want to proceed any further with the writ petition, MAT 11 of 2026 along with the connected application being CAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of, WPA 7724 of 2025 stands dismissed. [RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.] [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]