08.09.2026 sl.4 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 23952 of 2026 Giridhari La Shaw Vs HMC & Ors. Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya Mr. Kaustav Seal Mr. Himadree Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. Rishav Karnani Mr. Pranav Sharma Mr. Arka Biswas …for respondent nos. 7 & 8 Mr. Amit Baran Dash Mr. Arghya Chatterjee …for the State 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “A writ of /or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Howrah Municipal Corporation, its men, agent, subordinates to stop such work of illegal construct in premises no. 26/5, Jelia Para Lane, Salkia, , PS-Golabari, Howrah -711106 and accordingly directing the municipal authorities to initiate demolition proceeding forthwith.” 2. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the private respondent no. 7 has obtained a sanctioned building plan to construct G+2 only. However, in deviation of the said sanctioned plan and in contravention of the applicable building rules, the private respondent has constructed G+5 without leaving any 2 statutory site space, thereby creating disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s premises. He submits that the petitioner made a representation dated 27.7.2026 before the concerned municipal authority against the illegal construction. This fact was brought to the notice of the concerned municipality. However, despite such notice, no steps have been taken in the matter. Given this situation, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and take necessary steps accordingly. 3. Mr. Karnani, learned Advocate for the private respondents, refutes such allegation and submits that the private respondents have been making the construction strictly in accordance with the building plan and the applicable building rules. He submits that, if the matter is relegated to the concerned authority for consideration of the petitioner’s representation, he would have no objection. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, particularly taking into consideration the stand taken by the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Assistant Engineer (Building), HMC, being respondent no. 3, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 27.7.2026 after giving an opportunity of hearing to 3 the petitioner and the private respondent. If respondent no. 3 finds it necessary, he may cause an inspection of the premises in question and, if upon such inspection he finds substance in the petitioner’s claim, appropriate steps shall be taken. If he finds that the petitioner’s claim has no basis, a reasoned order shall be passed and the said reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 5. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Till disposal of the petitioner’s representation by the concerned respondent, the private respondents shall not carry out any further construction in the building in question. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)