29 07.10.2026 sayandeep Ct.3. WPA 25102 of 2026 Woodburn Owners Association versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Rajib Mullick Mrs. S.Chakraborty … For the petitioner. Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee Mr. Kaushik Dey … For the KMC. Mr. Rajarshi Dutta Ms. Shivangi Thard Mr. Debojyoti Das Ms. Saloni Konar … For the private respondent no.6 1. The present writ petition has been filed for implementation of the stop work notice dated 10th October, 2025. Though, Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 6 had submitted on instructions that no construction was continuing at the locale that is at premises No. 5A, Bibhabati Bose Sarani (Woodburn Park), Ward No. 70, Borough-VIII, this Court noting the case made out had directed the municipality to file a report. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a report has been filed by the municipality which is counter singed amongst others by the Executive Engineer(C)(Building), Borough VIII. From the aforesaid report, it is clear that the petitioner’s complaint has been enquired into. On the basis of the above complaint, a stop work notice was issued on 10th October, 2025 and a hearing is under way before the Special Officer Building under Section 400(1) of the KMC Act, 1980(hereinafter referred to as the said Act). On the basis of the report, it would transpire that no new unauthorized construction work has 2 WPA 25102 of 2026 been carried out after the stop work notice has been issued except installation of a new European water closet in a dilapidated toilet block. 3. Although, at this stage, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner would attempt to contend that the wall which is shown in the photographs annexed to the report may have come up subsequently, however, having regard to the factual disclosure made in the report, I am of the view there is no scope for this Court to enter into any controversy on factual issues. This apart, the portion of the toilet which Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate wishes to identify, appears to be a portion of the partly demolished toilet block which is otherwise exposed to open area, and ordinarily can no longer be used as a toilet. 4. Having regard thereto, I am of the view, there is no scope to interfere. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)