OD-12 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/791/2025 KABIR HOSSAIN VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 24th September, 2026. Appearance : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Zohaib Rauf, Adv. Mr. Amartya Basu, Adv. …for the petitioner. Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv. Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Ananya Das, Adv. …for KMC. Mr. Neil Basu, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Avidipta Paul, Adv. …for the respondents. The Court :- 1. Complaining unauthorized construction made at the back portion of Premises no. 8A, Kustia Road, Police Station- Tiljala, Kolkata 700039, Ward no.- 66, Borough-VII of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the failure on the part of the municipal authorities to deal with the said unauthorized construction, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner would complain that although the petitioner had made a representation on 22nd August, 2025, such representation is yet to be redressed. When the matter was taken up for consideration by an order dated 12th February, 2026, this Court considering the report filed by the Municipality 2 and noting therefrom that two number of old building exists, one of which is five storied building and is fully occupied, without any sanction plan had directed the Municipality to carry out a further inspection of the said premises and to identify whether the property, in question, had been occupied and whether the same is with any water connection, sewerage connection and/or electricity connection. Details of the electricity meter, if any, were also directed to be disclosed. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, ultimately after repeated extension, the Municipality had filed a report on 18th March, 2026. However, subsequently, since it was represented by the learned Advocate representing the Municipality that the report filed by the Municipality was incomplete as due to inadvertence, certain documents had not been enclosed to the report, accordingly, on the prayer of the learned Advocate for the Municipality, the matter was adjourned. 4. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed enclosing therewith certain documents which include photographs of the building, a copy of the inspection book and the sketch plan of the building. No disclosure has been made with regard to the particulars of the electricity meters. 5. It would, however, be of interest to note that in the report, the Executive Engineer has identified that the buildings have been provided with water connection, sewerage connection as well as electricity connection. No disclosure has been made as to how a building constructed without the sanction building plan could have been connected with sewerage and water supply. 6. This Court also notes that in the report filed by the Executive Engineer namely, Brojo Kishore Dhar, (C) Building, Borough-VII, dated 11th March, 2026, he claimed that according to the functional system, there is no 3 scope for the Executive Engineer to ascertain whether any building is unauthorizedly constructed unless, the file is placed before the Executive Engineer as and when the Executive Engineer (C) visits the concerned site. It is, therefore, clear that the concerned engineer has sought to disown responsibility of the illegal construction which is standing on the locale. 7. In my view, simply because the concerned file has not been placed before him, the same does not absolve the responsibility of the Municipality to deal with any unauthorized construction, especially when a representation in this regard has been made. 8. Upon perusal of the representation dated 22nd August, 2025 appearing at page no. 18 of the petition, it is clear that the said representation was duly received by the office of the Executive Engineer (Borough-VII) and as such, the concerned Executive Engineer feigning ignorance of the unauthorized construction appears to be a cover-up. 9. Be that as it may, noting that there is a subsisting illegal construction, municipal authorities are directed to immediately initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 400 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and bring the same to a logical conclusion on an expeditious basis, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. With the aforesaid directions, WPO/791/2025 is disposed of accordingly. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) KB AR (CR)