42 22.09.2026 sb Ct.3. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 23914 of 2026 Kartick Chandra Halder Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bhaskar Chakraborty Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee … For the petitioner. Mr. Subhasis Bandopadhyay ….For the municipality. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Challenging the order dated 29th June, 2026, passed by the Board of Councillors of Burdwan Municipality, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The matter has a history. 4. Previously at the instance of the respondent no.7 in a writ petition, being WPA 13289 of 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 23rd September, 2024 was inter alia pleased to dispose of the said writ petition which complained of illegal construction at the behest of the petitioner herein, by directing the municipal authorities to find out unauthorized construction, if any, and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the municipal authorities had proceeded to initiate a proceeding under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. It was only thereafter, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd 2 WPA 23914 of 2026 September, 2024 had preferred an appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, however, refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had filed the appeal belatedly that too after the municipality had proceeded in compliance with the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd September, 2024. The application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal which was registered as MAT 251 of 2026 was also dismissed. 6. The petitioner, however, complains that the order impugned does not identify the 82 sq. ft. which the petitioner is required to remove in terms of such order. 7. The municipality is represented. According to the learned advocate for the municipality the 82 sq. ft. is the portion which is beyond the sanctioned building plan and as such the same does not require any identification. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that the order does not identify the portion which the petitioner is required to demolish, accordingly the same cannot be sustained. It was the obligation of the Board of Councillors to identify the portion which the petitioner was required to demolish. Though the petitioner cannot be protected for carrying out illegal construction, however, at the same time the Board of Councillors cannot direct the petitioner to demolish 82 sq. ft. without the Board of Councillors first identifying which portion of the constructed area is beyond the sanctioned building plan for the petitioner to demolish the same. 3 WPA 23914 of 2026 9. Accordingly, while setting aside the order passed by the Board of Councillors dated 29th June, 2026, I remand the matter and direct the Board of Councillors of the Burdwan Municipality/Administrator if appointed, to take a decision in the case by passing a reasoned order and by identifying the portion which the petitioner is required to be demolished. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)