21.09.2026 Ct. 3 Item No. AD 16 Saswata WPA 15797 of 2026 Raj Agarwal @ Rajesh Agarwal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Satya Prakash Shaw …For the petitioner Mr. M. Saha Ray Ms. Shruti Dutta …For the State Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. Debasree Dhamali Ms. Riya Ghosh …For the Bally Municipality Mr. Akash Ganguly Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta …For the respondent nos. 11 and 12 1. Complaining illegal construction on the common passage of Jindal Heights being premises / holding no. 161/1, Girish Park, Ward No. 32, Liluah, Howrah, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. By order dated 17th September 2026, this Court noting that the petitioner’s car had been confined to his garage by reasons of the common area in front of the garage of the petitioner having been raised by 6 to 7 inches from the previous level, had directed the municipality to forthwith visit the locale and make egress and ingress to the garage hindrance free, for the petitioner to access the car. 3. The officer - in – charge of the jurisdictional police station was directed to render all possible assistance to Bally municipality for ensuring compliance of the order. 4. Despite the aforesaid order, on the returnable date on 18th September 2026, the municipality could not execute the order due to bad weather condition. Since, the report 2 filed by the Inspector – in – charge of the jurisdictional police station attempted to overreach the directives issued by this Court by observing “in absence of any specific operative direction or an authenticated copy of the relevant order of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta clearly indicating the precise nature and extent of demolition and / or removal work to be undertaken, the officials of Bally Municipality expressed their inability to proceed with the proposed work at that juncture”. The above observation was de-hors the stand taken by the municipality. 5. In the peculiar facts, this Court, noting that the Bally municipality having categorically held out that the order dated 17th September 2026could not be complied with due to bad weather, was of the view that if the Inspector – in- charge was unable to appreciate the contents of the order, he ought to have approached this Court instead of preparing such a report and this Court while expressing its displeasure and by noting that the order dated 17th September 2026 was explicit and clear, had directed Officer – in – charge of the jurisdictional police station to oversee and ensure compliance of the previous order and file a report when the matter is taken up next. 6. Today, Mr. Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the municipality has placed before this Court a compliance report dated 19th September 2026 and submits that the gate of the garage of the petitioner has been made hindrance free as per the direction of this Court. Photographs of the said garage has also been annexed to the report which are taken on record. Copy of such report is retained with the file. 3 7. The report of the Inspector – in – charge of Liluah Police Station is also retained with the record. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the access to the petitioner’s garage is now hindrance free, I am of the view that there is no necessity to pass any further order in the present writ petition. It may be pertinent to note that the dispute amongst the petitioner and the private respondents appears to be of private nature and the parties may proceed and resolve the same in accordance with law before appropriate forum if so advised. 9. It is made clear that this Court does not make any comments as regards the same. 10. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)