06.08.2026 SL No.16 Court No.12 (gc) MAT 810 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 CAN 3 of 2026 Singhapur Little Unit Club VS The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharya, Mr. Madan Mohan Roy, Mr. Anup Kumar Samanta …for the Appellant. 1. Affidavit-of-service is taken on record. 2. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Re: CAN 2 of 2026 3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 153 days in preferring the appeal. As the appellant was not a party to the writ petition, the appellant was unaware of the order impugned in this appeal. 4. On perusal of the explanations offered in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said application, we are of the view that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 5. Hence, the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of. 2 Re: CAN 1 of 2026 7. This is an application for leave to appeal. The appellant claims to be a club, which had constructed the building. The said building was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The club contends that, with the collective effort of the local people of Singhapur village, various activities and initiatives were taken by the club and for such purpose a club house was required to be constructed. “No objection” had been given by the owners and occupiers of the land, which entitled the club to make such construction. The club contends that all the social and cultural activities will come to a standstill if the construction is demolished. The specific contention of the club is that, it was a necessary party to the writ proceeding as the construction was at its behest. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that leave should be granted to the club to prefer the appeal and address us on the merits of the order impugned. 9. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. 10. Leave is granted. Re: MAT 810 of 2026 With CAN 3 of 2026 11. CAN 3 of 2026 is an application for stay. Instead of hearing the application for stay separately, we propose to hear the appeal. 3 12. It appears that the appellant has already approached the competent civil court by preferring an appeal from the order of demolition. In our view, this appeal has now become infructuous. The contentions of the appellant that, only two members of the club were given prior notice and they were not authorized by the club to attend the hearing, are to be raised before the civil court. Liberty is granted to the appellant to approach the civil court for necessary orders, which shall be decided in accordance with law. 13. We dispose of the appeal and the application as we do not find any perversity in the order of His Lordship. His Lordship had not decided on the issue of unauthorized construction. His Lordship had directed the municipality to take necessary action upon hearing all necessary parties and interested parties. 14. Whether the hearing given to the members of the club was sufficient compliance of His Lordship’s order and whether the demolition order was passed in accordance with law will be decided by the appellate forum. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without any interference with the order impugned. 16. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 4 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)