04. 04. 29.09.2026 (D/L) (D/L) CT. NO. 05 CT. NO. 05 (ARPAN-A.R.CT.) In The High Court at Calcutta CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 21924 OF 2026 ZAKARIA KHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS …………… Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ameena Kabia, Adv. Ms. Farah Anjum, Adv. … For Petitioner Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Mr. Vicky Kumar Roy, Adv. …For State Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, Adv. …For KMC Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Adv. Mr. Subho Mukherjee, Adv. …For Respondent No.6 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing petitioner, State respondents, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short, “KMC”) and respondent no.6. 3. Mr. Saptangsu Basu, learned Senior Advocate representing petitioner submits that when steps were taken for repairing premises no.4/1, Gobinda Chandra Dhar Lane, P.S. Burrabazar, Kolkata petitioner was obstructed by a particular police official attached to Burrabazar Police Station prompting petitioner to approach this Court seeking necessary direction which would facilitate petitioner to repair aforesaid premises in question. During course of hearing, attention of this [2] Court has been drawn to a notice dated 19th January, 2026 issued by the concerned authority of KMC. 4. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, learned advocate representing respondent no.6 questions authority of petitioner to repair the premises in question based on notice of the KMC dated 19th January, 2026 since it is alleged that petitioner is not owner of the said premises. 5. Learned advocate representing State respondents has filed one communication dated 9th September, 2026 of Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar Police Station, Kolkata and same is taken on record. Copies of the said communication dated 9th September, 2026 are made over to learned advocates representing petitioner and respondent no.6. 6. There is denial in the said communication with regard to allegation made by petitioner that petitioner while repairing the premises in question was being prevented by a particular police official. It is also disclosed in the communication that if repairing is conducted in terms of notice issued by concerned authority of KMC then steps can be taken, in accordance with law. 7. In view of disclosure of such stand vide communication dated 9th September, 2026, no further order need be passed on this writ petition. If petitioner is authorized to repair the premises in question based on notice dated 19th January, 2026, he shall be at liberty to take steps, in accordance with law. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed as an imprimatur regarding authority of petitioner to repair the said premises. [3] 9. With the aforesaid clarification writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)