Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 06 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Jain & Anr.; Respondents: Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others (including respondents nos. 3‑5).
- Writ Petition No. WPO/870/2025 filed challenging the demolition order dated 29 August 2025 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (B.T. Appeal No. 117 of 2012).
- The matter involved alleged illegal/unauthorised construction of 713 sq ft (66.29 sq m) in a duplex complex (Flat D‑1, Ballygunge Park Road) including a roof‑cover, staircase, and two gates in mandatory open space, violating KMC Building Rules 62, 69, 77(2), 133 & 134.
- Earlier proceedings (Case No. 31‑D/VII/2012‑13) resulted in the Special Officer (Building) ordering regularisation before the 2015 amendment; the Municipal Building Tribunal later reversed that order, directing demolition within three months.
- The petitioners were previously directed (19 Feb 2026) to deposit Rs 50 lakhs for an unconditional stay of the demolition order for eight weeks; the stay would continue upon deposit.
- An appeal (APOT 36 of 2026) raised two questions: (i) whether Article 226 jurisdiction extends to the Tribunal’s order, and (ii) whether the sole remedy lies under Article 227.
- Extensive legal arguments referenced Section 415 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, various Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court precedents (e.g., Shrimati Anima Saha, Ghanashyam Das, Shalini Shyam Shetty, Radhey Shyam, Surya Dev Rai, Kanak Projects Ltd., Bhowanipore Gujarati Education Society), and the Full Bench decision that a writ under Article 226 against a statutory tribunal exercising judicial functions is maintainable.
- The petitioners contended that the technical opinion of the Tribunal’s Technical Member was not shared with them, alleging violation of natural justice; the Court examined Order XVIII Rule 18 of the CPC and held that while parties must not be surprised, the nature of the unauthorised construction rendered the non‑supply of the opinion non‑prejudicial.
- The technical opinion dated 29 Aug 2025 concluded that the unauthorised construction was not minor, violated multiple building rules, and recommended demolition.
- The Court found the Tribunal’s findings supported by sufficient evidence, noted no jurisdictional error or perversity, and rejected the petitioners’ claim of prejudice.
Final Outcome
- The writ petition is dismissed; the demolition order dated 29 Aug 2025 stands.
- No order as to costs.
- Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order upon compliance with formalities.
Topics: Legal Dispute, Construction Regulation