21.09.2026 Court No. 12 Item No. 6 Sandip MAT 1357 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Firdous Asghar Vs. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar & Ors. Mr. Indrajit Bhattacharjee, Mr. Susmit Bharadwaj …for the appellant. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh …for the KMC. Ms. Shagufta Sulaiman (in person) …for the respondent no. 4. Re : CAN 1 of 2026 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. CAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 3. The appeal has been filed allegedly 63 days beyond time. 4. From the averments made in paragraphs 3 to 7, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 5. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed. 6. The delay is condoned. 7. MAT 1357 of 2026 is regularised. Re : MAT 1357 of 2026 8. The appellant is a party to the contempt proceeding. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated June 11, 2026 passed in CPAN 1578 of 2024. 9. The order directing demolition of the three unauthorised floors at premises No. B/4/1/A/3, Nawab Abdul Latif Street, is under challenge before us. 10. According to the appellant, the floors have already been demolished, hence the order impugned should be set aside by us. 11. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the corporation and some of the alleged contemnors submits before us that the entire demolition could not take place. 12. The applicant to the contempt application, who was the writ petitioner appears in person and submits that the original order passed in the writ petition out of which the contempt proceeding has arisen was challenged by the appellant’s brother and the appellant by filing MAT 2296 of 2024. The said appeal was dismissed with an observation that the appellants had not approached the appeal court with clean hands. Such observation is available at paragraph 11 of the order dated January 6, 2026 passed in MAT 2296 of 2024, which is quoted below :- “11. However, in view of the above conduct of the appellants, we are not confident that the appellants have come with a clean hand..” 13. The appellant is a party to the writ petition as also the contempt proceeding, and as such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appellant’s remedy is already available. 14. As the writ petition and the contempt applications are pending. 2 15. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 3