Authority: Kolkata High Court, Court No.12 (Cp/gc)

Order Date: 25 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Mosiur Rahaman Mallick vs. Respondent Ataur Rahman & Anr., with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) as a statutory party.
  • Counsel: Sr. Adv. Sourav Sen, Ms. Adrisnata Chakraborty, Mr. Subhayan Barik for the appellant; Mr. Moloy Roy Choudhury for Respondent No.2; Sr. Adv. Alok Kumar Ghosh for KMC.
  • Background: The appeal stems from an order dated 14 May 2026 in CPAN 1151 of 2024, wherein the court directed the Municipal Commissioner to appear virtually. A contempt application (WPA 7664 of 2023) alleged KMC’s non‑compliance with earlier directions.
  • The Special Officer (Building) held a hearing; the order impugned noted that a demolition order was not served on the parties.
  • The appellant learned of the order, filed an appeal and a condonation of delay application (CAN 2 of 2026).

Findings & Reasoning

  • The court noted that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained (points 9‑10) and therefore condoned the delay, allowing CAN 2.
  • CAN 3 of 2026, an application for leave to appeal, was examined. The impugned order does not contain a demolition directive; thus, the appellant’s right to appeal the Special Officer’s order remains a statutory matter.
  • The court clarified that any coercive action by KMC without serving the order would require a separate writ petition, and the limitation period for a statutory appeal is 30 days, which had not commenced due to non‑service.
  • Consequently, the court declined to grant leave to appeal (point 18) and dismissed CAN 3.
  • The appeal papers did not clarify the appellant’s role (owner vs. tenant); the court reserved that issue for later stages (point 19).
  • Accordingly, the original appeal (CAN 1) and the associated applications were dismissed (point 21).
  • Parties were directed to act on the server copy of the order (point 22).

Final Outcome

  • Condonation of delay (CAN 2) was allowed.
  • Leave to appeal (CAN 3) and the primary appeal (CAN 1) were dismissed.
  • The matter is to be pursued, if necessary, through appropriate writ proceedings.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Municipal Governance