Disposed¶20

Rabindra Nath Bar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Jun 2025WPA/10608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contai Municipality demolition order; Section 218 West Bengal Municipal Act 1993; statutory appeal Section 218(3); ex parte demolition without hearing; inspection behind petitioner's back; inspection report not served; unauthorised construction encroachment Public Works Department; notice served petitioner absent; stay two months appellate authority; WPA 10608 of 2025; Jharna Rath WPA 17542 of 2023; Kausik Chanda J.; 18-06-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 218(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 before the appellate authority within two weeks; the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law; a two-month stay on the operation of the demolition order, with continuance of the stay to be decided by the appellate authority uninfluenced by observations in this order. ¶20

Rabindra Nath Bar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned demolition order suffered procedural defects — the inspection said to have been conducted behind the petitioner's back and the inspection report allegedly never served upon him. +3 more

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits of the controversy, the Court decided that the petitioner ought to be granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 218(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

¶12

Key takeaways

The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶14
The appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law.ratio¶15
A stay was placed on the operation of the demolition order for a period of two months from the date of the order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Demolition order dated April 11, 2025, passed under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 by the Board of Councillors of Contai Municipality — issued in compliance with an order dated January 2, 2024 in WPA 17542 of 2023 (Jharna Rath vs. State) — challenged as having been passed ex parte without hearing, on an inspection allegedly conducted behind the petitioner's back and without service of the inspection report. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of WPA 10608 of 2025, granting the petitioner liberty to appeal under Section 218(3) within two weeks, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law, staying operation of the demolition order for two months, and leaving continuance of the stay to the appellate authority uninfluenced by observations in the order. (Kausik Chanda, J., 18-06-2025.)

¶1

10 18-06-2025 AKG WPA 10608 of 2025 Ct. 15 Sri Rabindra Nath Bar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶2

Ms. Somoshree Saha …for the Petitioner Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Mr. Snehasis Jana, Mrs. Tutun Das, Mrs. Anulekha Bera Maity …for the Private Respondent Mr. Asish Kumar Guha, Mr. Rajendra Chaturvedi …for the State Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari, Ms. Oindrila Sinha

¶3

…for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4

¶4

The petitioner challenges an order of demolition dated April 11, 2025, passed under Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, by the Board of Councillors of Contai Municipality.

¶5

It appears that the said order was issued in compliance with an order dated January 2, 2024, passed in WPA 17542 of 2023 (Jharna Rath vs. State).

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the inspection, based on which the impugned demolition order was passed, was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. It is further alleged that a copy of the inspection report was never served upon the petitioner.

¶7

It is also submitted that the demolition order dated April 11, 2025, was passed ex parte without hearing the

¶8

¶9

petitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6, however, denies the allegations made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has raised unauthorised construction encroaching upon his land as well as land belonging to the Public Works Department of the State.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that despite due notice being served upon the petitioner, he deliberately chose not to participate in the proceedings before the Municipality.

¶12

Without entering into the merits of the controversy raised before this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 218(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

¶13

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶14

i) The petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of this order.

¶15

ii) The appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law.

¶16

iii) There shall be a stay on the operation of the

¶17

¶18

demolition order for a period of two months from the date of this order.

¶19

iv) The continuation of the stay beyond the initial period of two months shall be decided by the appellate authority, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

¶20

Accordingly, WPA 10608 of 2025 is disposed of.

¶21

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶22

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Rabindra Nath Bar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Nath Bar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamaluddin Sk. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shib Shankari Roy Vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Tarun Kanti Majumder Vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Hpa Transtrade Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prasenjit Khanra Vs the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Naba Kumar Das Vs Cesc Limited and Anr.