16.09.2026 sayandeep Sl. No. ML 27 Ct. No. 03 WPA 13761 of 2026 Alokesh Ganguly Vs. The KMC & ors. Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty Mr. Subhrangsu Panda Ms. H. Roy Mr. Anupam Singha …. for the petitioner Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh Mr. Gopal Chandra Das ….. for the KMC 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent No. 5 being the competent authority under the KMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with the notification dated 24th March, 2023 in respect of premises No. 3A, Ganguly Lane, Kolkata-700007 for considering and disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 29th January, 2026 for revalidation of the plan which was valid till 31st January, 2025. 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the petitioner had obtained a sanctioned building plan for reconstruction of premises No. 3A, Ganguly Lane, Kolkata 700007, in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(2)(e) and Rule 3 (2)(a) WPA 13761 of 2026 2 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 read with Section 410 of the said Act dated 1st February, 2023. 4. According to the petitioner, the reconstruction work could not commence at premises No. 3A Ganguly Lane, Kolkata 700007, due to several legal proceedings initiated by one Suresh Prasad Gupta resident of 3A Ganguly Lane, Kolkata 700007 against the petitioner including KMC, touching the above premises. The petitioner’s case further proceeds on the premise that a title suit being T.S. No. 779 of 2023 was pending before the learned 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta which prevented the petitioners from carrying out construction. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, the aforesaid suit has since been decreed on compromise by a decree dated 12th March, 2025. In the interregnum, the petitioner has applied for re- validation of the plan. Such application for revalidation has been made vide application dated 29th January, 2026. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the municipality would submit that there is no scope to revalidate the sanctioned building plan as the statute only recognizes extension of the tenure of a plan. In the instant case, no such application has been made within the validity of the plan. WPA 13761 of 2026 3 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and without going into the issue at this stage as to whether the application filed by the petitioner is at all sustainable, I am of the view, the municipal authorities should treat the application dated 29th January, 2026 filed by the petitioner as a representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)