Construction must remain suspended pending the municipality’s decision under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act.

The petitioners, claiming to be recorded thika tenants of premises no. T/56A/H/1A, Sambhunath Pandit Street, Kolkata, entered into a development agreement with the private respondents. Although a sanctioned building plan dated 4 August 2025 had been obtained, the petitioners alleged several deviations and unauthorised constructions, including alteration of pillars and beams, shifting of the staircase and lift, unauthorised construction of an underground water reservoir, and variation in the thickness of floor slabs.

The petitioners complained to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), which issued a notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The KMC subsequently prepared a rough sketch and infringement statement and initiated proceedings under Section 400(1) of the Act after recording internal deviations from the sanctioned plan. The private respondents disputed the allegations and contended that the construction conformed to the sanctioned plan.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained or retained when the KMC had already initiated proceedings under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction.

Whether further construction should be permitted during the pendency of the proceedings, having regard to the allegations concerning deviations and structural safety.

Section 401 provides for issuance of notice concerning unauthorised construction or other municipal infringements, while Section 400(1) empowers the municipal authority to consider and determine the consequences of such unauthorised construction in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Where the competent municipal authority has already initiated the statutory adjudicatory process, the writ court need not retain a parallel proceeding, but may issue directions to ensure that the statutory process is completed expeditiously and that public safety is protected.

The Court noted that the KMC had acted upon the petitioners’ complaint, identified internal deviations from the sanctioned plan, issued a stop-work notice, prepared the relevant municipal records, and initiated proceedings under Section 400(1).

Since the statutory authority was already seized of the matter, the Court found that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the writ petition or undertaking an independent examination of the alleged deviations at that stage. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the potential safety risks to the building and workers, the Court directed that no further construction be undertaken until the municipal proceedings were concluded.

No further construction was permitted until the municipal authority took its decision, and the KMC was directed to circulate its report to all parties.