11.09.2026 sl.6 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 17701 of 2026 Rajesh Jaiswal & Anr. Vs Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Rudranil Das …for the petitioners Mr. Sanjib Seth …for respondent no. 5 Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Ankit Sureka …for the HMC 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the reasoned order dated 2nd July, 2026, issued by the Assistant Engineer (in-charge) of the Building Department, Howrah Municipal Corporation (for short, HMC). The operative portion of the said order dated 2nd July, 2026 is reproduced hereinbelow: “ That the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the KMC Building Rules, 1990, as extended to Howrah. Accordingly, the petitioner, Rajesh Jaiswal, is hereby directed to undertake self-demolition of the unauthorized portions from the ground floor up to the fourth floor, comprising a total unatorized area measuring 103.842 sq.m. The petitioner is also directed to undertake self-demolition of the portion on the ground floor where the change of use has taken place. Further, the mobile tower/pole situated at the north-west corner of the roof, having been constructed without a sanctioned building plan, shall be removed/demolished, as mentioned in the Inspection Report, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the Howrah Municipal Corporation shall carry out the demolition of the unauthorized constructions and deviated 2 portions, and the cost of such demolition shall be borne by the respondent.” 2. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that, pursuant to an order dated 19th February, 2022 passed in a writ petition being WPA 2942 of 2019, the Assistant Engineer, Building Department, HMC, directed the petitioner to carry out self-demolition of the unauthorised portion of the building in question within the period stipulated therein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WPA 5725 of 2022, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 23rd March, 2023. Mr. Mukherjee submits that, by the said order, the Bench directed that the portion which the petitioner had been permitted to retain upon payment of the retention fee should not be demolished and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to produce documents evidencing the Corporation’s permission for such retention. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being MAT 555 of 2023, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated 8th May, 2023. By the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Bench that, in order to claim the benefit of retention of any portion of the unauthorised construction, the appellants would have to produce documentary evidence demonstrating that such 3 permission for retention had been granted by the Corporation in favour of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Mukherjee submits that certain portions of the building were identified by the Corporation as unauthorised, including the portion of the roof where the mobile tower has been installed, certain portions where there has been a change of use, and certain internal deviations. He submits that, in respect of the aforesaid portions, the petitioner was directed to deposit certain amounts towards the charges payable for retention thereof and, accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amounts. He contends that such payments are evidenced by the money receipts annexed to the writ petition. He further submits that the said money receipts were duly produced before the competent authority of the HMC. Despite the same, the Corporation has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2026 directing demolition. He submits that, in the aforesaid conspectus, immediate intervention of this Court is warranted and, unless an interim order is passed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 2nd July, 2026, the petitioners are likely to suffer serious prejudice. 5. Mr. Sureka, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation, submits that the building was constructed in deviation of the sanctioned building plan and that the deviations are substantial in nature and incapable of being regularised. He submits that, in respect of certain portions, 4 the petitioners had deposited retention fees. However, he claims, that mere acceptance of such retention fees cannot be construed as having the effect of regularising the unauthorised construction carried out by the petitioners in gross deviation of the sanctioned building plan. 6. Mr. Sureka submits that, although the petitioners had produced certain money receipts, no document could be produced evidencing that any permission had been granted by the Corporation permitting the petitioners to retain any portion of the construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned building plan. He further submits that the HMC has taken steps strictly in accordance with law and in due compliance with the directions contained in the orders passed in WPA 5725 of 2022 and MAT 555 of 2023. 7. Mr. Seth, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5, submits that, since the construction was raised in deviation of the sanctioned building plan and the deviations are substantial in nature, the Corporation cannot regularise such deviations. He further submits that a contempt proceeding has been initiated at the instance of the private respondent alleging violation of the order dated 8th May, 2023 passed in MAT 555 of 2023. He submits that the said contempt proceeding is likely to be taken up for hearing in the ensuing week. 8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 5 9. The record reveals that, by the earlier order passed in WPA 5725 of 2022 and subsequently by the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 555 of 2023, demolition of the unauthorised construction was directed. At the same time, an exception was carved out in respect of such portions as the Corporation had actually permitted the petitioners to retain upon acceptance of the prescribed retention fee, subject to the petitioners producing documentary evidence of such permission having been granted. 10. The petitioners contend that they had deposited the requisite amounts towards retention fees and rely upon the money receipts issued by the Corporation in support of their contention that the concerned portions had been permitted to be retained. The Corporation, on the other hand, disputes that the said receipts establish that any permission had been granted to retain the unauthorised construction and contends that the petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence evidencing any such permission. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2026 has been passed directing demolition. 11. The question as to whether the portions sought to be demolished fall within the exception carved out by the earlier orders of this Court and, consequently, whether the petitioners had in fact been permitted by the Corporation to retain such portions, would require examination of the 6 relevant records and the documents relied upon by the respective parties are disputed questions of fact. 12. At this stage, particularly when the Corporation disputes the very nature and effect of the documents relied upon by the petitioners and a contempt proceeding concerning the alleged violation of the order dated 8th May, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is also stated to be pending, it would not be apposite to undertake such factual examination or express any final opinion on the said issue. 13. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties and, more particularly, to the fact that a contempt proceeding has also been initiated alleging violation of the order dated 8th May, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, I am not persuaded to grant any interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned order dated 2nd July, 2026. In such conspectus, the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. 14. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is dismissed. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)