Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 22596 of 2026 Ratna Sengupta Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Arup Banerjee Mr. Arun Kumar Saha For the State : Mr. Shaunak Ghosh Ms. Sruti Dutta For the Municipality : Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay For the respondent nos.: Mr. S. S. Arafin 7 and 8 Heard on : 17.09.2026 Judgment on : 17.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the notice dated 10th September, 2024, issued by the Chairman, Burdwan Municipality calling upon the occupants of holding no. Khoshbagan, 1 Pakmara Road, Ward No. 80 to carry out the repair work in the building in question. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already served notice of eviction on the tenants being the 2 WPA 22596 of 2026 respondent nos. 7 and 8 who are residing in the aforesaid premises. Following the same, eviction suits have been filed before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court, Purba Burdwan which have been registered as Title Suit No. 522 of 2022. It is also the petitioner’s case that advocate commissioner has already been appointed who has recorded that the building is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and may collapse at any time. As such the opportunity afforded by the municipality to the private respondents, who are the petitioner’s tenants, to carry out repair work is unsustainable as according to the petitioner the building is beyond repair. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that it is within the exclusive domain of the municipality to consider whether any repair work is necessary for restoring the damaged portion (s) of a building. Further, the notice appears to have been issued more than two years back. The petitioner has challenge the said notice after two years. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why such a belated challenge has been made. Going by the materials on record it would transpire that there are disputes and differences between the petitioner and the private respondents, however, in my view such disputes and differences cannot stand in the way of the municipal authorities calling upon either the petitioner or the private respondents, to carry out the 3 WPA 22596 of 2026 repair work in the building in question. As to whether the building in question is beyond repair is a question of fact, which can be decided in the pending civil proceedings. This Court may add that the petitioner is at liberty to carry out the repairs by himself if, however, the petitioner is not interested to carry out the repairs, the private respondents can carry out the same in accordance with law subject to the order (s) passed by the civil Court. 5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)