15. 28.09.2026. Court No.03. (Pritam) WPA 25305 of 2026. Ayesha Rizwani. -Vs.- KMC & Ors. Mr. Wasim Ahmed. .....for the petitioner. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sundar Gopal Bhattacharyya. ......for the KMC. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent nos.7 and 8 constructing a room on the first floor at 20, Bedford Lane, Ward No.61, Police Station – Park Street, Borough VI, Kolkata – 700 006 which the petitioner clams to be unauthorized. The petitioner also relies on a representation dated 24th September, 2026 addressed to the municipal authorities. 3. The municipality is represented. A report filed in Court today, which is counter-signed by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department, on 24th September, 2026 would demonstrate that the department has caused an inspection and found that the above premises is a two-storied residential building. 2 4. At the time of inspection, no ongoing construction was found on the said site and the inspection shows no construction had been done in the recent past and no contrary information from the colour photograph of the locale as has also been disclosed, surfaces. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record and noting that the photograph disclosed by the petitioner matches with the photograph disclosed by the municipality and also noting from the report that no new construction has taken place, I am of the view that there is no scope to pass any order in the present writ petition, especially when the coloured photograph of the locale shows that the building is an old building. 6. It was also relevant to note that though the petitioner claims he is the owner in respect of the premises in question, the petitioner has not disclosed the status of the respondent nos.7 and 8. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos.7 and 8 are either illegal occupants or are tenant. No proper disclosure has been made in the petition as to the status of the respondent nos.7 and 8, as well. 7. In the facts as stated above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 3 8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)