1 D/L 46 21.09.2026 Rohit,A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 22307 of 2026 Laxmi Residency Private Limited & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv Mr. Anmaol Shah Ms. Rajorna Majumdar …for the Petitioners Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Ankit Sureka Mr. Sandipan Das …for the HMC 1. On 21st August, 2026 this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- “1. Challenging the order dated 11th August, 2026 directing the petitioners to demolish the deviated portions of G+7, G+8 and G+9 storied building situated at 55, 56 and 57 Rose Merry Lane, P.S.-Golabari, P.O. Salkia, Ward No. 13, District-Howrah, 711101, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that on the basis of the sanctioned building plans duly sanctioned by the municipal authorities, the 2 petitioners had commenced construction at the locale. The construction has been undertaken on the basis of the sanctioned building plans and the construction has been completed in the year 2021. 3. Incidentally, on 7th July, 2026, a show- cause has been issued under the provisions of Section 177(1) of the HMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) alleging unauthorised construction. The petitioners claim WPA 22307 of 2026 2 to have responded to the above show-cause by communication in writing dated 10th July, 2026. According to Mr. Basu, there is no admission in the representations made by the petitioners’ in response to the show cause. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Assistant Engineer, HMC by noting that the petitioners have admitted in writing that they had committed violation, directed the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction in the deviated portions. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the schedule of the demotion order and the extent of demolition to be undertaken by the petitioners. Mr. Basu submits that the same does not identify which 3 particular portions, the petitioners are required to demolish, the same only requires demolition of deviated portions. In support of his contention that a vague order cannot be implemented, reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Laddu Gopal Bajoria & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in (2006)4 CHN 136. 4. Ms. Sinha, learned advocate appears for the Howrah Municipal Corporation. She would submit that what is being demolished is the boundary wall. According to her, the demolition is being carried out in accordance with law upon passing the order dated 11th August, 2026 passed under Section 177 of the said Act. The copy of the communication received by Ms. Sinha, advocate as placed before this Court be retained with the record. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find from the disclosure made by the petitioners, prima facie, there appears to be no admission in writing as regards the violations. 4 6. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the order dated 11th August, 2026 does not speak of demolition of any boundary wall rather the same identifies only deviated portions without specifying the same, in my view, the above order which prima facie appears to be vague, cannot be enforced. Accordingly, there shall be a stay of operation of the demolition order dated 11th August, 2026 till the end of September 2026 or until further order whichever is earlier. The respondents are restrained from proceeding further without first communicating the petitioners the particulars of the portions which the petitioners would be required to demolish, and without affording opportunity to the petitioners to carry out the demolition by themselves. 7. The municipal authorities are at liberty to file a report in the matter or in the alternative, to produce the record. 8. The petitioners are at liberty to communicate the gist of this order to the respondents.” 5 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the municipality has filed a report. From the aforesaid report it would transpire that there are certain deviations which are particularly identified in the joint inspection report. 3. In the peculiar facts and noting that the demolition order under challenge dated 11th August, 2026 did not identify the extent of deviated portions, I am of the view that the said order cannot be sustained. However, having regard to the disclosure made by the municipal authorities vide joint inspection report dated 3rd September, 2026 which has been filed before this Court and is taken on record, let a fresh proceeding be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 177 (1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and such proceeding be brought to a logical conclusion in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by passing a reasoned order on an expeditious basis preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 4. The undertaking given by the learned Advocate for the municipality to file vakalatnama in course of this week is noted in this order. 6 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, W.P.A. 22307 of 2026 stands disposed of. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Urgent Photostat website copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)