11-09-2026 rpan/04 W. P. A. 6658 of 2026 Sri Biswajit Banik -Versus- The Chairperson, The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation & Others Mr. Purbangshu Chandra Mitra, Ms. Piyali Mitra, Ms. Mahasweta Mukherjee … for the Petitioner. Mr. Anish Kr. Mukherjee … for the BMC. Mr. Emon Bhattacharya, Mr. Balaram Sardar, Mr. Subhankar Dutta … for the Private Respondent nos.6 & 7. 1. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept with the record. 2. The writ petitioner by instituting the instant writ petition has indicated that the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 have started illegal construction by encroaching 12 feet X 300 feet common passage with the help of some strangers, anti social elements without compliance of any provisions of law. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is having right, title and interest over a property, having holding no. AS/114/2000 (now renumbered – 420), situated at Mouza: Dashadrone, J. L. No. – 4, C. S. Dag No. – 320, R. S. Dag No.338, R. S. Khatian No. – 283, P.S. – Baguiati. 4. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that having no other alternative the writ petitioner has been compelled to institute the instant writ petition by praying inter alia commanding the respondent nos.1 to 5 to take steps in accordance with law and to initiate appropriate proceeding with regard to ongoing unauthorised construction at the instance of the private respondent nos.6 and 7 herein. 5. Admittedly adjacent to the plot as stated above there is a 12 feet common passage which connects the municipal road, namely, Dashadrone Ghosh Para (Rajarhat Road). 6. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos.6 and 7 specifically denies and disputes the allegations levelled against them. He further submits that the private respondents in this writ petition are having the sanction plan and on the basis of the sanction plan they have started construction. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipal authority argues that there is a prescribed law by which the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed in a proper manner. 8. Records would reveal that on 5th February, 2026 a complaint relating unauthorised construction has been 2 lodged before the respondent no.3 but the said representation is still unattended. 9. After considering the submissions of the respective parties, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the respondent no.3 to consider the representation dated 5th February, 2026 (annexed at page 43 of the writ petition) within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties and shall pass a reasoned order within a week thereafter. The respondent no. 3 is directed to communicate the order passed by him, to the parties within one week thereafter. The entire exercise has to be completed within a period of 14 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. However, I make it clear that as no affidavits have not been filed by the respondents, the allegations levelled against them are deemed to have been denied. 11. In view of the above, the present writ petition, being WPA 6658 of 2026 is disposed of. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) 3