10.09.2026 Item No.94 Court No.444 Avijit Mitra WPA 1388 of 2026 Sipra Dey & anr. - Versus – The State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pranati Das, Mr. Subhomay Paul ….for the petitioners Mr. Fazlul Haque, Ms. Ina Bhattacharyya …for the K.M.C. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on records. Records would reveal that the petitioners herein have already suffered with a demolition order dated 29.12.2022 as it would be explicit from the pages 26 and 27 of the writ petition. Retaliation to that effect, the writ petitioners submitted a representation with regard to the unauthorized construction raised by the private respondent no.10 herein as would be also explicit from the page no.29 of the writ petition. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as the private respondent no.10 herein is the employee of the concerned Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, KMC), for such reason the KMC authority is not considering the representation filed by writ petitioners and sitting tight over the issue in question. Despite service upon the private respondent no.10, no one appears on his behalf. Mr. Haque, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Ina Bhattacharya, learned advocate appear on behalf of the KMC and submits that there is no intention on the part of the KMC to sit tight over the issue in question. He also submits that once any representation is filed on behalf of any one, the same is considered in accordance with law. After considering the submissions of respective parties, I am of the opinion that the purpose of presenting the writ petition will be served if the representation dated 4th April, 2022, as would be explicit from the page 29 of the writ petition, is considered in accordance with law. In view of the above, the respondent no.7 is directed to consider the representation submitted by petitioners dated 4th April, 2022 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall pass a reasoned order within one week thereafter. The respondent no 7 is further directed to communicate the reasoned order upon all the parties. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. 2 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) 3