Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)
Order Date: 28th August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner Talat Ahmed vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and others, including private respondents 8‑10 who operate the resto‑pub "Hashtag Kolkata" at 50, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata‑700071.
- Nature of dispute: Alleged illegal construction of two extra floors on the terrace of an approximately 50‑year‑old eight‑storey building, converting about 6,000 sq.ft. carpet area for the resto‑pub.
- Procedural history:
- Court order dated 8 Jan 2026 directed KMC to file a report on the alleged construction.
- KMC filed a report stating that a demolition sketch was prepared on 3 Dec 2024 and approved by the Mayor‑in‑Council on 8 Jan 2025 under Section 400(8) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
- The court noted the private respondents’ claim of having submitted indemnity and SOP, but no documents were produced.
- On 12 Feb 2026 the court adjourned the matter to 17 Feb 2026 and directed the Officer‑in‑Charge of the jurisdictional police station to file a report on police action.
- No report was filed by 19 Feb 2026; the officer was ordered to file an affidavit explaining the omission.
- On 20 Aug 2026 the lessee intervened, claiming authorization to operate the resto‑pub; the court allowed the intervention and directed the petitioner to serve an amended writ petition.
- The officer appeared in court but tendered only an unaffirmed affidavit, claiming the affidavit and a report dated 10 Nov 2025 were prepared but not placed before the court.
- The court found the explanation unsatisfactory, noted the officer’s attempt to shift responsibility to the advocate, and dispensed with personal appearance on the officer’s undertaking to comply with future orders.
- Additional directions:
- The Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, was added as a respondent and directed to inspect both the premises at 50 Chowringhee Road ("Hashtag Kolkata") and 11/1 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, ensuring compliance with the West Bengal Fire Services Act, 1950.
- The municipal authorities were reminded to enforce the demolition order passed under Section 400(8) of the Act.
- The court clarified that an order under Section 400(8) is ex‑parte and does not require a hearing; no challenge to the demolition order was recorded.
- A request for a stay of the demolition order by the private respondents’ counsel was rejected as there was no pending challenge.
Final Outcome
- The court did not stay the demolition order; the demolition of the unauthorized construction is to proceed.
- The fire department inspection of both locations is to be carried out.
- A copy of the police officer’s report (or lack thereof) is to be circulated to the contesting parties.
- The writ petition is disposed of without further order, as the demolition order has already been passed.
Topics: Unauthorized Construction, Demolition Order