Municipal authorities must adjudicate alleged illegal construction under Section 218 by a reasoned order.

The first writ petition challenged alleged illegal construction at Holding No. 29, Rammohan Place, Ward No. 17, under Konnagar Municipality, and sought an enquiry and report by the municipal authorities.

Although the first petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, the Court declined to permit withdrawal because the matter concerned alleged illegal construction, which the Court regarded as a social evil.

The Municipality thereafter conducted an inspection and filed its report.

The report disclosed that the sanctioned plan permitted construction from the ground floor to the fifth floor, with specified mandatory open spaces and a sanctioned building height of 17.10 metres.

The inspection allegedly revealed deviations in the open spaces on the northern, western and eastern sides from the first to the fifth floors.

The report also did not clearly set out the entire constructed covered area.

The second writ petition was filed by the developer/owner challenging the purported unilateral cancellation of the completion certificate relating to the same premises.

It was contended that the cancellation had been effected without notice or an opportunity of hearing and without adequate reasons.

Since both petitions concerned the same premises and overlapping issues, the Court heard them together.

The Court primarily applied Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, directing the municipal authorities to initiate proceedings under that provision and bring them to a reasoned conclusion.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before an adverse municipal decision is taken, directing that the inspection report be circulated to the parties before the decision.

The Court further relied on the general administrative-law requirement that statutory authorities pass a reasoned order based on relevant materials.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The municipal inspection disclosed apparent departures from the sanctioned open spaces: the northern ground-floor setback was stated to be 1.20 metres instead of 3.00 metres, while the setbacks on the northern, western and eastern sides on the upper floors were also less than those reflected in the sanctioned plan.

The Court additionally noted that the municipal report did not fully identify the constructed covered area.

Since these matters required factual determination and had not been finally adjudicated, the Court did not itself declare the construction illegal.

Instead, it directed the Municipality to commence proceedings under Section 218, conduct any further inspection necessary in the presence of the parties, ascertain the exact sanctioned and constructed areas floor-wise, circulate the inspection report, and pass a reasoned order.

The directions also ensured procedural fairness in relation to the developer’s challenge to the completion certificate.

Pending that determination, the Court restrained further construction and directed the Municipality to paste a notice on the outer wall recording the prima facie nature of the alleged illegal construction.

No further construction was permitted until the municipal decision, and a notice regarding the prima facie illegal construction was directed to be displayed at the premises.

WPA 12447 of 2025 was accordingly disposed of.

WPA 24956 of 2026, challenging cancellation of the completion certificate, was also disposed of because the first petition had been disposed of and the alleged illegal construction was to be examined in the statutory proceedings; the Court made clear that the finding of illegality was only prima facie at that stage.