OD–3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTI0N ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/366/2026 ABDUL SHAMAD VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 27th August, 2026 Appearance : Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Aasish Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Shivansi Indoria, Adv. …for the petitioner Ms. Sristi Barman Ray, Adv. …for the State Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv. …for the KMC 1. The present writ petitioner has been filed inter alia praying for a direction upon the respondent-municipal authorities to permit the petitioner to carry out the repair works at stall no.93, Block-A, Fish Market, South 24 Parganas, Orphangunge Market, Alipore Body Guard Lines, Alipore, Kolkata – 700 023. 2. The petitioner had earlier written a letter to the Chief Manager (Market), Kolkata Municipal Corporation seeking permission to carry out the repairs. Such letter is dated 27th April, 2026 and forms part of the writ petition. The municipal authorities have filed a report which is countersigned amongst others by the Deputy Manager, Market Department dated 27th August 2026. The said report filed by the municipal authorities is taken on record. 3. The report reveals that by communication dated 21st August, 2026 issued by the office of Executive Engineer (C).Market, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was requested to submit requisite details and specifications along with the necessary WPO/366/2026 2 particulars of the proposed repair work so that the municipal authority could inspect the site and take necessary action in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate representing the petitioner, by placing by this Court a communication dated 24th August, 2026, would submit that in response to the aforesaid requisition, the petitioner had duly intimated the details of proposed repair works the petitioner intends to carry out as set out in paragraph 4 of the said communication which is extracted herein below:- “4. That the details of the proposed repair work, including the nature and extent thereof, are as follows: a. Removal of the damaged, loose and deteriorated portions of the existing top layer of the slab, the extent necessary for carrying out the repair; b. Repair and restoration of the damaged portions with cement concrete of appropriate specification, including cement concrete mix, as per the applicable KMC norms and/or as may be directed by the competent Engineer. c. Proper leveling and smooth finishing of the repaired surface so that the slab remains even, washable and suitable for hygienic fish-selling activities.” 5. Let a copy of the aforesaid communication dated 24th August, 2026 be taken on record. 6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the municipality would submit that though previously the municipality had accorded permission to the petitioner to carry out repairs, however, having regard to the disclosure made by the petitioner, the municipality shall take a decision in this regard on an expeditious basis. He further submits that on inspection that was carried out, it was found that the petitioner was carrying on business from the stall in question and, as such, the allegations of the petitioner that the third parties are interfering with the business run by the petitioner from the aforesaid stall is unacceptable. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon going through the materials on record, I find that the prayer made by the petitioner appears to be innocuous. As such, the municipality may consider the request WPO/366/2026 3 of the petitioner and issue appropriate permission to carry out the repair. However, it is made clear that the repair work to be carried out by the petitioner should be under the supervision of the municipal authorities and that in the guise of carrying out repair, no additional work shall be permitted to be carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also not be permitted to enclose the area in any manner whatsoever. 8. It is also made clear that while carrying out the repair work, the petitioner shall not encroach upon the adjacent stall. 9. However, while disposing of writ petition, this court is of the view that ordinarily the above repair and maintenance is required to be done by the municipal authorities and municipal authorities must ensure that the market places are appropriately maintained. 10. The writ petition is thus disposed of. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) akg/