13.08.2026 Item No.02 Court No.01 KCP WPA(P) 372 of 2026 Kajal Goswami - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Ms. Shilpi Ghosh …. For the petitioner Mr. Indrajit Roychowdhury, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Jaydipta Mandal Mr. Apurba Ghosh …. For the State Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Avishek Prasad …. For the respondent nos.3 to 5 Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta Mr. Tirthankar Dey Ms. Ria Naskar …. For the respondent No.6 The present Public Interest Litigation (in short, PIL) has been preferred praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent nos.3 to 5 ‘to refund the amount received from the bonafide flat owners and developers in excess of what is chargeable under Rule 121 of The West Bengal Municipal (Finance and Accounting) Rules 1999’ and also to refund ‘the amount as charged under the head of commercial tax from the developer who is not the owner of the building in respect of the common area and taking the mutation fee from the purchaser at the rate of 2% of the market value’. 2 Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the present PIL has been instituted not for enforcement of any personal or private right of the petitioner but has been filed to espouse the cause of an identifiable class of citizens within the jurisdiction of English Bazar Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the said Municipality). The said class of persons is being subjected to an arbitrary and illegal levy of property tax at commercial rates in derogation to the directives contained in the memo dated 4th May, 2015 and the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal (Finance and Accounting) Rules 1999. Detailed averments to that effect have been made in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the writ petition. He further argues that the entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher Courts is founded on equity and fairness. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and neither rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. In every case where injustice is explicit on records, it is incumbent upon the Court to interfere and to prevent such injustice upon issuing appropriate direction upon the concerned authorities. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Union of India & Ors. –vs- Bali Ram No.850808321 and State of Tamil 3 Nadu and Others Vs. Elephant G. Rajendran and Others, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 29. He further contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases has ruled that a delegated or a statutory authority cannot impose a tax or fee based on implied authority or administrative convenience. In the present case, the enhanced tax which is being demanded is, in fact, affecting the entire class of allottees within the jurisdiction of the said Municipality. The petition is thus aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong. Mr. Prasad, learned advocate appearing for the Municipality, however, denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petition involves private interest and has not been preferred for redressal of any offence against the society as a whole and as such, the petition itself is not maintainable. Drawing our attention to the documents annexed at pages 27 to 46, Mr. Prasad submits that the allottees, whose individual interests were alleged to have been interfered with by the municipal authorities, approached the writ Court to vindicate their rights alleging that their legal rights have been violated. The said writ petitions have been dealt in details and appropriate directions have been issued upon the municipality. 4 Drawing our attention to a demand notice issued on behalf of the petitioner on 28th May, 2026, as annexed at page 46 of the writ petition, Mr. Mandal, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner himself has asked for implementation of the orders which have been passed in independent writ petitions. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the averments made and the documents annexed to the PIL, it appears that pertaining to the issue urged in the PIL, independent writ petitions were preferred and the writ Court issued appropriate direction upon the municipality to act in accordance with the direction given by the Municipal Affairs department. The municipality has also been directed to accept mutation fees strictly in accordance with the relevant rules. Further direction has also been issued upon the municipality to refund the security deposit as has been collected from the concerned applicants applying for mutation. There is no dispute as regards the proposition of law laid down in the judgments delivered in the cases of Union of India & Ors. (supra) and State of Tamil Nadu and Others (supra), however, the same are distinguishable on facts. 5 Public Interest Litigation is preferred for redressing a public grievance. It does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury. In the instant case, however, the right sought to be established is the right of individuals. A public wrong refers to an act or omission that violates laws designed to safe guard the community or society at large, rather than just an individual right. Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the present case, we are unable to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner being WPA (P) 372 of 2026 is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)