Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against orders of statutory tribunals exercising judicial functions.

The petitioners challenged the Municipal Building Tribunal’s order dated 29 August 2025, which reversed the Special Officer (Building)’s decision to retain unauthorised construction and directed its demolition.

The construction included an RCC slab covering courtyard space, a staircase and gates in the mandatory open space; the Tribunal relied on a technical opinion identifying approximately 713 sq. ft. of unauthorised construction and violations of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules.

The petitioners had previously obtained retention of other structures subject to an undertaking not to make further unauthorised construction.

The Division Bench directed the writ court to decide whether the challenge lay under Article 226 or only under Article 227.

The Tribunal’s technical opinion had not been supplied to the parties before its decision.

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against the order of the Municipal Building Tribunal, or whether the petitioners’ sole remedy lay under Article 227.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s order was vitiated by reliance on an undisclosed technical opinion or was otherwise perverse and liable to be set aside.

Section 415 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 establishes the Municipal Building Tribunal to hear appeals, including appeals concerning proceedings under Sections 400 and 416; an order of that quasi-judicial statutory tribunal is amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

The Full Bench decision in Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, AIR 2009 Cal 140 (FB), held that an Article 226 petition challenging an order of a statutory tribunal exercising judicial functions is maintainable.

Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, excludes civil-court judicial orders from Article 226 review but does not extend that exclusion to statutory tribunals.

Under Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881, certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors and manifest errors of law, but does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the High Court’s factual findings.

Principles of natural justice require an opportunity to address material relied on by an adjudicatory body, but, under Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, relief is not warranted where the opportunity would be futile and no prejudice is shown.

The Court held that the Tribunal was a statutory quasi-judicial body, not a civil court, and therefore its order was reviewable under Article 226; the restriction in Radhey Shyam concerning civil-court orders did not apply, and the Full Bench ruling in Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society resolved the maintainability question.

On the merits, although the technical opinion had not been supplied before the Tribunal ruled, the petitioners did not show that disclosure would have altered the result or otherwise caused prejudice.

The unauthorised construction and the relevant violations were not disputed, the construction measured approximately 713 sq. ft., and it had been undertaken despite the earlier undertaking against further unauthorised construction.

The Court therefore found no denial of natural justice, jurisdictional error or perversity, and declined to reappraise the Tribunal’s findings.

It nevertheless found the Tribunal’s order sustainable and not perverse, dismissed the writ petition, and made no order as to costs.