Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 18220 of 2026 Abdul Kalam Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. For the petitioner in : Mr. Arif Ali Mr. Tridip Bose Mr. Sourav Roy Mr. H. Rahman For the Kolkata Municipal Corporation : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Dipankar Ghosh For the respondent no. 8 : Mr. Rahul Karmakar Ms. Antalina Guha Ms. S. Ray Ms. T. Ghosh Heard on : 22.09.2026 Judgment on : 22.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Complaining inaction on the part of the municipal authorities in failing to take steps in furtherance to the order dated 13th May 2026 passed in WPA no. 2248 of 2024 and WPA no. 7370 of 2026, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. When the writ petition was moved on 6th August 2026 this Court had directed the municipal authorities to file a short report. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Executive Engineer (C)/Building/Br. VII has filed a report dated 2 14th August 2026 and in such report in respect of premises no. 88 Park Street, Ward no. – 064, Br. VII, Kolkata – 700017 it has been stated that in terms of the order dated 13th May 2026, the Special Officer (Building) has passed an order dated 3rd June 2026 under Section 400 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. According to the report the order has been placed before the MIC for concurrence / approval. Incidentally, since no disclosure had been made in the above report as to the nature of the order, and also in the second paragraph of the said report, it has been stated that pursuant to the complaint, inspection was carried out which notes unauthorized conversion of the car parking space / open space into TVS showroom and used as commercial purpose for which a proceeding under Sections 400(1) and 416(5) of the said Act has been initiated, this Court had directed the Executive Engineer to explain by way of an affidavit why the appropriate disclosure as regards the order has not been made in his above report. This Court had also directed the production of the entire records. Pursuant to the above direction, an affidavit was filed, however, the order passed under Section 400 (1) on this occasion as well was also not produced since according to the Executive Engineer the order passed by the Special Officer (Building) had not attained finality, as the said order is pending consideration before the higher authority. 4. Though this Court did not appreciate the above conduct on the part of the Executive Engineer, however, since Mr.Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the municipality had prayed for an accommodation to place the order passed by the Special Officer (Building) dated 3rd June 2026 before this Court, the matter was adjourned. 5. Today, Mr. Mukherjee has placed before this Court the order dated 3rd June 2026. From the aforesaid order it would transpire that an infringement statement has been prepared. It has been noted that on all three sides of the 3 building no open space has been maintained and the ground coverage is more than 60 per cent. 6. Incidentally, the Special Officer (Building) by the order which has been placed before this Court, chose not to bring the building in conformity with the building rules by directing demolition of the illegally constructed portion but had passed the order permitting shifting of electric meters to a place which is easily accessible to all the occupants of the building and also passed an order for retention of the unauthorized construction on payment of fees. 7. The aforesaid order, prima facie, appears to be in conflict with the municipal laws. A major deviation of this nature could not have been regularized by the municipal authorities. The aforesaid order is clearly perverse. The reasons for holding back the above order is now clear. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts such major deviation as noted above cannot be permitted to be regularized and as such, the above order dated 30th June 2026, so far as the same directs retention, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 9. Now, upon the retention order having been set aside, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the private respondents by treating the other portions of the aforesaid order which records the deviations, to be treated as a notice under Section 400(1) of the said Act. 10. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to appoint any other Special Officer (Building) who is authorized to deal with such case, and the contested parties may be notified of such appointment for them to place their respective cases before him. 11. The Special Officer (Building) shall decide on the issue within two weeks from the date of his appointment. 4 12. The observations made by this Court are only tentative and the Special Officer shall proceed to adjudicate the same without being influenced by any or the observations made by this Court, touching the merits of the case. 13. Insofar as the Park Guest House is concerned, the municipality is directed to act in compliance of the order dated 13th May 2026 issued in WPA 2248 of 2024 and WPA 7370 of 2026. 14. With the above direction and observation the writ petition is disposed of. 15. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Saswata Assistant Registrar (Court)