A prior municipal inspection and demolition order obviate a further joint inspection to identify illegal construction.

The matter concerned unauthorised construction at 17/H/2/9, Canal West Road, Kolkata. The municipality had issued a demolition order and, with police assistance, carried out demolition on 17 and 18 August 2026.

In an earlier order, the Court noted that part of the building had been vacated and directed the municipality to report on the demolition and the police to report on steps taken in Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 198 of 2023 under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

In its subsequent report, the State recorded that the accused had been enlarged on bail and that police had sought a joint inspection by the municipal Executive Engineer in connection with the investigation.

Whether a further joint inspection was required to identify the unauthorised construction for the purposes of the municipal demolition action.

Whether the police could conduct a joint inspection for the purpose of investigating the Section 401A proceedings, and what further directions were appropriate regarding demolition and investigation.

The Court considered Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, in the context of proceedings against the person responsible for acting contrary to a stop-work notice.

It proceeded on the basis that the municipality had already inspected the premises and issued a demolition order, and that police assistance could be provided on the municipality’s lawful requisition. No judicial precedents were cited.

Because the municipality had inspected the premises and issued a demolition order, the Court found no further joint inspection necessary to identify the unauthorised construction for the demolition action.

It distinguished that purpose from the police investigation: if the police wished to inspect the premises to investigate the complaint, they could do so through a joint inspection, with the municipality directed to cooperate.

Given the progress of the demolition, the Court considered it unnecessary to keep the writ petition pending, while directing the police to conclude the investigation expeditiously.

It directed the municipality to complete the demolition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within ten weeks of communication of the order, with continuing assistance from the State. After completion, the municipality must file a report, including photographs of the demolished portion, before the Registrar General for tagging with the case file.

The police were directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously and were permitted to conduct a joint inspection for investigative purposes, with municipal cooperation.