02.09.2026 ADSL. No. 1 Ct No. 446 SG WPA 24184 of 2026 Mofijul Rahaman Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rachit Lakhwani, Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya. …for the petitioner Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. AAG. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, ld. AGP Mr. Sagar Dutta. …for the NKDA Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, ld. Junior Standing Council Mr. Sneha Chatterjee. …for the State 1. Fundamentally, the present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction restraining the respondent from taking any consequential steps pursuant to the notice dated 1st September, 2026. By the said notice, the Inspector-in-Charge, Eco Park Police Station, New Town, Kolkata, has been requested to provide adequate police force on 2nd September, 2026, at 3:00 P.M., for maintaining law and order during the demolition of the unauthorised construction of Kiosk “Savory” at Astra Tower, Premises No. 05-4444, Action Area-II, New Town. 2. Mr. Lakhwani, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of a space measuring more or less 387 sq. ft. at Astra Tower, Major Arterial Road (North Extension), Action Area-IIC/1, Plot No. II, New Town, Rajarhat, Police Station – New Town, North 24 Parganas. He submits that, within a short period of service of 2 the notice, the authority concerned has sought to demolish the petitioner’s kiosk in a wholly arbitrary manner. 3. He submits that such action bears resemblance to the course of action which prompted the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the decision reported at (2025) 5 SCC 1 [Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, In Re], to describe such action as “bulldozer justice”. He submits that, prior to issuance of the said notice, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to establish or defend his right to occupy the said kiosk, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter calls for immediate intervention by this Court and that appropriate interim protection ought to be granted restraining the respondents from proceeding with the demolition of the kiosk in which the petitioner has been inducted as a tenant. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the NKDA, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of an area measuring 387 sq. ft. in Astra Towers, from which he is operating a kiosk and carrying on other business-related activities. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT 2279 of 2023 [Bijay Biswakarma v. Rajkumari Devi Singh & Ors.], he submits that, in the said case, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that a tenant in respect of the premises in question has neither any right to participate in the demolition proceedings nor any right to prefer an appeal challenging the 3 order of demolition. He submits that, in view of the aforesaid proposition laid down in Bijay Biswakarma (supra), the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the petitioner was rendered in a batch of writ petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, wherein various citizens had complained that their residential and commercial properties had been demolished by the State authorities without following due process of law, on the ground that they were involved in criminal proceedings. He submits that the said decision is distinguishable on facts and has no application to the present case. He contends that, although the decision in Bijay Biswakarma (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, Section 82 of the NKDA Act is more stringent inasmuch as it confers upon the owner alone the right to participate in the demolition proceedings and to challenge the order of demolition passed by the competent authority. 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the State, adopts the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharyya and submits that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as he has no locus standi to challenge the order of demolition. He claims that the petitioner being a tenant has been running a kiosk in front of a a restaurant illegally. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 8. The present writ petitioner is a tenant in respect of an area measuring 387 square feet in Astra Towers, wherefrom he 4 is operating a kiosk in front of a restaurant. Upon inspection, the competent authority concluded that the said kiosk was constructed illegally, and a notice was served upon the petitioner on 7th August, 2026. However, despite receipt of the notice no steps have been taken to remove such illegal construction and, accordingly, the notice dated 1st September, 2026 was issued. In the decision of Bijay Biswakarma (supra), it was held that a tenant of a disputed premises has no right to participate in the demolition proceedings or to prefer an appeal challenging the order of demolition; however, admittedly, the decision of Bijay Biswakarma was rendered in the context of Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. 9. However, Section 82(1) of the New Town, Kolkata Development Authority Act, 2007 expressly requires that the owner be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order of demolition is passed. Section 82(2) also specifically deals with the procedure for affording such opportunity to the owner. Section 82(3), however, does not provide that an appeal against an order of demolition can be preferred only by the owner. At the same time, the aforesaid provisions do not expressly confer upon a tenant any right either to participate in the demolition proceedings or to challenge an order of demolition. The maintainability of a writ petition at the instance of a tenant would, therefore, depend upon whether the petitioner is able to establish an enforceable legal right which has been infringed by any action or inaction on the part of the respondent authority, or whether the authority has failed to discharge a statutory duty cast upon it. A writ of mandamus can 5 be issued only where the petitioner establishes the existence of such a legal right and a corresponding public or statutory duty on the part of the respondent authority. 10. Since the petitioner has failed to establish that he has any legal right to resist the demolition process undertaken by the competent authority, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 12. There is no order as to costs. 13. Since no affidavits have been called for from the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 14. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)