Mandamus for revocation of sanctioned building plan requires prior exhaustion of statutory remedies.

The petitioner, an 80-year-old resident of 28A Badur Bagan Lane, Kolkata, sought a writ of mandamus to cancel a building plan (No. 14/Br-IV/2022-23) sanctioned in favor of the private respondent (Respondent No. 8) for the adjacent premises at 28C Badur Bagan Lane

The petitioner alleged that during 2015-2016, the respondent reconstructed structures without due process and deviated from plans by encroaching on set-back areas

The petitioner further claimed that recent construction under a 2022 sanction also deviated from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act, 1980

While the KMC conducted a hearing on April 16, 2024, and issued an order on April 18, 2024, stating the construction appeared to be in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the petitioner maintained that the sanction was invalid as the original 2015-16 files were missing from KMC records

1. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to cancel or revoke a sanctioned building plan when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act

2. Whether the absence of historical sanction files (2015-16) automatically invalidates a subsequent sanction granted under Section 410 of the KMC Act

Section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which provides the statutory mechanism and grounds for the revocation of a sanctioned building plan

Section 410 of the KMC Act read with Rules 3(2) and 141 of the KMC Building Rules, 2009, regarding the sanctioning of plans for existing structures

The court adhered to the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, noting that it should not "usurp the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities" at the first instance when a specific statutory procedure exists

The Court observed that while the petitioner alleged illegal construction and sought revocation of the building plan, no formal application for revocation under Section 397 of the Act had been filed before the KMC

The Court reasoned that since the statute prescribes a specific manner for revocation, the petitioner must follow that procedure to allow the respondent a right to be heard

Regarding the missing 2015-16 files, the Court noted that the Corporation’s inability to trace documents cannot, by itself, serve as a conclusive finding against either party

The Court highlighted that the 2022 sanction was issued under Section 410, which presupposes the existence of structures, explaining the proximity to the boundary wall

The Judge concluded that the grievances regarding "unauthorized construction" had been tentatively addressed by a KMC report/order dated April 18, 2024, but a final, clear communication was still required

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an application for revocation under Section 397 within two weeks; the KMC was directed to decide on such application in accordance with law within six weeks of filing and to finalize and communicate its decision regarding the general complaint of illegal construction to the petitioner