SATISH KUMAR SINHA AND ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 22581 of 2026
Satish Kumar Sinha & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla
Mr. Asif Hussain
Md. Abdul Halim
Mr. Sahil Hamid
Mr. Biswadeep Dey
Md. Ijaz Ahmed Molla

For the State : Mr. Atanu Basu

For the KMC : Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee
Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey

For the respondent nos.: Mr. Malay Kumar Singh
10 and 11 Mr. Tanwear Ahmed Khan

Heard on : 17.09.2026

Judgment on : 17.09.2026

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed complaining illegal
construction at premises no.T/56A/H/1A, Sambhunath Pandit
Street, Ward no.71, Borough-IX (hereinafter referred to as the “said
property”).

2
WPA 22581 of 2026
3. Mr. Hussain, learned advocate representing the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are the recorded thika tenant in respect
of the said property, which comprises 3 cottahs, 2 chittacks more or
less. The petitioners had entered into a development agreement with
the private respondents for development of the aforesaid property.
th
Though a sanctioned building plan dated 4 August, 2025 was
obtained at the instance of the petitioners, however, later the
petitioners realized that there had been serious deviation in
carrying out the construction. The deviations have been noted in
paragraph 8 of the writ petition, which are extracted hereinbelow:
“ That the serious deviation and unauthorized construction
are highlighted herein below:
(i) Beams / Pillars erected only 15 Pillars which resulted
serious "WEEKNESS" of the "BASE" which may cause sudden
fallen up;
(ii) Shifting of staircase from the existing building sanction plan;
(iii) Deviation of and/or changing the place of erecting lift
contrary to the existing sanction plan;
(iv) Underground water reservoir has been completely
constructed illegally and unauthorizedly beneath the ground
floor staircase room contrary to the existing sanction building
plan;
(v) As per sanction plan the concrete Dhalai of each floor is only
three inches which should be five inches.

3
WPA 22581 of 2026
(vi) Due to above unauthorisation and deviation may collapse
the building resulting loss of human lives, for example recent
collapse of building at Metiabruz Kolkata which snatched away
the life more or less 100 persons” .
4. According to the petitioners, though a complaint was lodged with
the municipal authorities since, no steps have been taken apart
from issuing notice under Section 401of the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act’), the
instant writ petition has been filed.
5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of the municipal
th
authorities. He has placed before this Court a report dated 16
September, 2026, duly countersigned by the Executive Engineer
(C)/Bldg./Br-IX. As per the aforesaid report the municipality after
receiving the complaint in respect of the said premises had noted
that there has been internal deviation from the sanctioned building
plan which prompted the municipality to issue stop work notice. In
the instant case, after preparation of rough sketch and infringement
statement, the matter was processed and the higher authority has
passed an order to proceed under Section 400(1) of the said Act.
6. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appears for the private respondents. He
would submit that the construction is in accordance with the
sanctioned building plan.
7. The State is also represented.

4
WPA 22581 of 2026
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties I find that since the municipality has already acted on the
basis of the complaint and has initiated the proceedings under
Section 400(1) of the said Act, no fruitful purpose will be serve in
retaining the matter on the file. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of by directing the municipality to bring the proceedings
initiated under Section 400(1) of the said Act, to a logical conclusion
on an expeditious basis, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of communication of this order.
9. Till such time a decision is taken, no further construction shall be
carried out, having regard to the nature of allegations and safety of
the building and the workers.
10. The municipality shall circulate the report to the parties.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite
formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J . )
sb
A.R. (Court)