83. 29.09.2026. Court No.03. (Pritam) WPA 27270 of 2026. Somdatta Rai Chaudhuri @ Somdatta Das & Ors. -Vs.- Kolkata Municipal Corporation& Ors. Mr. Mukteswar Maity, Mr. Rafikul Islam, Ms. Manika Sarkar. .....for the petitioners. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. AAG., Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee. ......for the KMC. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Challenging the notice dated 2nd September, 2026 passed by the Executive Engineer (C), Building Department, Borough VII, whereby the petitioners were called upon to vacate the premises No.P-1 to P-7&P-9 to P-14, Canal South Road, Ward No.57, Borough – VII, for the purpose of demolition of the unauthorized construction, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the certificate of enlistment issued by the municipal corporation and would submit that the petitioners claim to have leased out a space at premises No.CZ-38, Canal South Road, Sec–B, Chingrighata Metropolitan Bazaar, Kolkata – 700 105, 2 which is now run by Chingrighata Metropolitan Bazar Samity. The said bazaar is running for quite a long period of time. According to the petitioners, the member of the bazaar are carrying on business peacefully and earning their livelihood from the said market. 4. From a perusal of the statements made in the petition and the notice impugned, it would transpire that the order under 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), has been passed on 1stJune, 2026. 5. It is not the respondents’ case that the petitioners have carried out any illegal construction. The petitioners, however, claim that no notice was served on the petitioner at any prior point of time. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 400(1) of the said Act, including the materials on record and the demolition order dated 1st June, 2026, which has been placed before this Court and are taken on record. As would appear from the copy of the order, the same recognizes the fact that the members of the Samity of the Chingraghata Metropolitan Bazaar, are running shops at plot No.C7 Sector-B, Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society, since long. The order further proceeds on the premise that the society did not provide the documents in respect of the ownership of the respective shops. The order also records that the 3 complainants pray for removal of the unauthorized structure of the shops so that they can set back the plots as recorded by the Assessment Department and the conveyance. 7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the Special Officer by noting that the shops are erected without any permission, had directed the removal of such structure within 45 days from the date of communication. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that the writ petition ordinarily should be heard, especially in view of the fact that the notice dated 2nd September, 2026 identifies the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 23rdFebruary, 2023, whereas, the demolition order is dated 1st June, 2026. 9. Further, considering the prima facie case, the balance of conveyance and the irreparable loss that would occasion by reasons of the demolition order, there shall be an order of injunction restraining the municipal authorities from implementing the above order without specific leave of the Court for a period of 3 months from date. 10. Copy of the order dated 1st June, 2026, has been made over to the learned advocate for the petitioners. Though, this Court was inclined to entertain the present writ petition, however, at this stage since Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional Advocate General 4 (AAG) would submit that the petitioners have the liberty to approach the Tribunal and the corporation is unlikely to proceed for some time so as to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to test out the order, noting the peculiar facts including the fact that the order dated 1st June, 2026 has only been made over in Court today, I am of the view if the petitioners approach the Tribunal for preferring an appeal within 15 days from date of receipt of server copy of the order with the undertaking to file the certified copy, upon the same being made available provided application for obtaining the certified copy is made within the above period, the tribunal shall admit, hear out and dispose the appeal on merit in accordance with law. The point of locus of the petitioners is, however, kept open and to be decided by the Tribunal. 11. The municipality shall, however, not proceed to take any coercive steps for a period of four weeks from date. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 13. 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.)