21.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 11 Sandip/gc MAT 1576 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Arun Kumar Ghosh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya. Ms. Neelanjana Ghorui, Ms. Anusmita Bhattacharya …for the appellant. Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arpan Guha …for the Private Respondent nos. 9-12. Mr. Ajit Kr. Mishra, AGP, Ms. Smita Pal, Mr. Aman Mishra …for the State. Mr. Sujay Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Jagajyoti Das, Mr. Subhamay Dutta …for the Meninipur Municipality. 1. This appeal arises out of an order dated September 10, 2026 passed in W.P.A. 24386 of 2026. 2. The learned Judge refused to pass an interim order, and called for affidavits. 3. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved by refusal of the learned single Judge to pass an interim order restraining construction of the 4th, 5h, 6th and 7th floor on the concerned premises. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that sanction was originally prayed for B+G+3 storeys, whereas, a revised plan was submitted for the additional 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floor. He has relied on a document to show that the sanction for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th, floor had been allowed prior to a sanction of the B+G+3 storeys. He also submits that the plan that was subsequently filed, claiming the same to be a revised plan, was a misrepresentation of facts, especially the land area of the premises. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the land measurement could not have increased subsequently. 4. The learned Judge refused the interim order on two scores. One, that the matter had to be decided upon exchange of affidavits, and the other ground was that, as the plan was the subject matter of a Public Interest Litigation in the High Court, no interim order could be passed. The PIL had been fixed on September 23, 2026. 5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate for the respondent Nos 9 to 12 submits that the documents relied upon by Mr. Bhattacharya do not appear to be correct. The sanction was granted as per the procedure. He disputes the plans annexed to the application. 6. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the Municipality submits that the entire action of the municipality was supported by the law. 7. The issues which are required to be decided in this writ proceeding are as follows; (a) Whether the sanction of the building plan could be granted without approval of a site plan. 2 (b) Whether the sanction for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floor could precede a sanction for B+G + 3 construction. (c) Whether the reliefs prayed for in the Public Interest Litigation by another litigant, would be sufficient to redress the grievances of the appellant. (d) Whether there are other issues for adjudication in the writ petition, which have not been raised in the PIL. (e) If (d) is answered in the affirmative, the writ petition should proceed according to law. 8. Although Mr. Bhattacharya submits that an order should be passed by us directing stay of the construction, we are of the view that the learned single Judge rightly directed that affidavits should to be filed by the respondents, in view of the factual issues raised. 9. As the validity of the plan and illegality thereof, is under question, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide on all the issues, including the issue as to whether, upon perusal of the affidavit by the respondent municipality, the construction should be stayed or not, till the disposal of the PIL. 10. All steps taken on the basis of the impugned plan(s) and the construction made on the basis thereof, shall abide by the decision of the writ petition and/or the public interest litigation, whichever is earlier. 3 11. Mr. Mukherjee submits that he will not be in a position to controvert the allegations of the appellant, unless they are all specifically averred in the writ petition. 12. The statute provides that a site plan is required to be filed, which the municipality has to approve first. Thereafter, the permission for sanction to build can be granted. 13. Municipality will be able to clarify all these issues by producing the documents relating to the sanction of the site plan and building plan(s) of the respondent nos.9 to 12. Copies of the site plan, sanction plan, revised sanction plan and the resolutions of the meetings of the Board of Councilors and/or order of delegation of the power of the Board to the Chairman, if any, shall be produced before the learned Single Judge by way of an affidavit. 14. Let such affidavit-in-opposition be filed within 10 days from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within 3 days thereafter. 15. We request His Lordship to prepone the date of hearing of the writ petition upon mention being made by any of the parties. 16. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 17. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) 4 (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 5