OD-15 & ODSL-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/147/2026 MAYA DASTIDAR VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CC/26/2026 MAYA DASTIDAR VS SRI SOMNATH DEY BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 7th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Joyjit Roychowdhury, Adv. ...for the petitioner Mr. Alok Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv. Mr. Gopal Ch. Das, Adv. .…for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arghya Chatterjee, Adv. …for state of WB. 1. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 13th February, 2026 passed by the Special Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. According to him, though in terms of order dated 15th January, 2026 the Special Municipal Commissioner was required to dispose of the proceeding initiated under Section 397 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said 2 Act’) and though the petitioner in the Appellate Side writ petition being WPA 15289 of 2025 was also directed to be heard by the Municipal Commissioner in relation to the complaint made by the petitioner, and despite a specific direction to the Municipal Commissioner to disclose all documents which the municipal authorities seek to rely while deciding the application under Section 397 of the said Act, for the petitioner in the first two writ petitions to respond to the same, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and order dated 13th February, 2026 was passed. 2. When the matter was moved on 22nd May, 2026, this Court had permitted the parties to file additional documents and the matter was directed to appear under the heading ‘Final Disposal. 3. Though no additional documents have been filed, the petitioner and the municipality have appeared and argued the matter. Having heard the learned Advocates representing the respective parties, I find that on 22nd May, 2026 this Court had directed the petitioner to serve copy of the order on non-appearing respondents and to file affidavit of service. Pursuant to such direction, petitioner has filed affidavit of service. Despite service the private respondent is not represented. 4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I find from the materials on record that there is nothing to show that the petitioner was heard pursuant to the order dated 15th January, 2026. In fact it is apparent and clear from the order impugned that the petitioner was not heard. In view thereof, the order passed by the 3 Special Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 13th February, 2026 cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The municipal authorities are directed to hear out the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the direction made on 15th January, 2026, it is expected that the municipal authorities shall dispose of the proceeding under Section 397 of the said Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. It is also made clear that municipal authorities shall make available all the documents to the contesting parties which they seek to rely in the proceeding, for the contesting parties to respond to the same. IN RE: CC/26/2026 8. In view of the order passed above, the contempt petition being no. CC/26/2026 stands disposed of without any further order. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) S.Seal