10.09.2026 Item No.27 Court No.444 Avijit Mitra WPA 129 of 2026 Sarbjanik Shiv Mandir - Versus – The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & ors. Mr. Madhu Jana, Mr. Golam Zakir, Mr. Wahed Reza ….for the petitioner Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Suman Basu …for the K.M.C. Mr. Biswasroop Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Ms. Bratati Pramanick, Mr. Shantanu Chakraborty ….for the respondent no.10 At the instance of Sarbjanik Shiv Mandir Committee (in short, SSMC), this writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for removal of an unauthorised construction of G+5 storied building situated at J-529, Banerjee Bagan, Kolkata 700024. Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the SSMC is represented through the Joint Secretary, who duly submitted a representation before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, KMC) on 10th December, 2025 indicating, inter alia, that there is a serious illegality adopted by the developer in constructing the building situated at J-529, Banerjee Bagan, Kolkata 700024. In spite of having received the specific complaint, the concerned Corporation has not made any endeavor to dispose of the same. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 8, on instruction submits that proceeding has already been initiated under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980 prior submission of the complaint by the writ petitioner before the concerned department. The present respondents and the complainant were summoned for hearing by the authority and was concluded by an order dated 5th January, 2026. Subsequently the said order was approved in the meeting of the Mayor-in-Council vide Item No.M-68.89 dated 21st January, 2026. The instruction, as produced, is kept on record. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.10 submits that once the proceeding has already been drawn up and the said proceeding has already been concluded and approval relating thereto has been accorded, further entertainment of the instant writ petition will be a futile exercise. Considering the submissions of respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that as the authority concerned has already initiated the proceeding and the order subsequent thereto in consonance with the provision of Section 400 (1) of the KMC Act, 1980 has already been passed , nothing is left to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. 2 In the said conspectus, the writ petition is disposed of without making any specific observation. 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