Dinesh Kumar Shaw Vs Anil Kumar Prasad — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dinesh Kumar Shaw Vs Anil Kumar Prasad — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with directions: liberty to all parties to mention WPA 28453 of 2025 before the Single Bench for early consideration; HMC to stay its hands on the demolition order dated 19.09.2025 until such consideration, with the stay capped at one month from the date of this order or until any Single Bench orders in WPA 28453 of 2025, whichever is earlier; connected application CAN 1 of 2025 also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant/promoter, having filed an independent writ petition (WPA No. 28453 of 2025) challenging the action of the HMC, is entitled to have his grievances heard before the order of demolition takes place. +1 more

Court's answer

The appellant, having filed an independent writ petition challenging the action of the HMC, is entitled to have his grievances heard before the order of demolition takes place.

Ratio / Principle

This Court grants liberty to all parties to mention WPA 28453 of 2025 before the Single Bench for early consideration to ensure that the interest of all parties are protected.

Key takeaways

Until consideration by the Single Bench of WPA 28453 of 2025, and subject to any order that may be passed by the Single Bench, the HMC shall stay its hands insofar as the demolition order dated 19 September 2025 is concerned.ratio¶15
The stay of hands by the HMC shall continue for a period of one month from the date of this order, or until any orders that may be passed by the Single Bench in WPA 28453 of 2025, whichever is earlier.ratio¶16
The Court has not entered into the merits of the order passed by the HMC; the Single Bench shall proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with law as it may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Appeal (MAT 2138 of 2025) by the writ petitioner/promoter, Dinesh Kumar Shaw, aggrieved by the Single Bench order dated 04.11.2025 passed in a writ petition filed by the private respondent/landlord, Anil Kumar Prasad, alleging deviations in construction effected by the promoter, which deviations were listed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) in an order dated 19.09.2025. The Division Bench held that the appellant, having independently challenged the HMC's action in WPA No. 28453 of 2025, is entitled to have his grievances heard before the demolition takes place. All parties were granted liberty to mention WPA 28453 of 2025 before the Single Bench for early consideration; until such consideration, and subject to any order of the Single Bench, the HMC was directed to stay its hands on the demolition order dated 19.09.2025, such stay continuing for one month from the date of the order or until any Single Bench orders in WPA 28453 of 2025, whichever is earlier. The Court expressly did not enter into the merits of the HMC's order. Allegations in the stay petition were not deemed admitted as the respondents had filed no affidavit in opposition. The appeal and connected application CAN 1 of 2025 were disposed of. Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.; order dated 16.02.2026.

16.02.2026 Court No.13 Item No.7 pk

MAT 2138 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025

Dinesh Kumar Shaw Vs. Anil Kumar Prasad and others

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratikanta Pal

..for the appellant.

Mr. Rishav Singh, Mr. S. Dutta.

…for the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Prasaenjit Burman, Mr. Swapnesh Mallik … for the respondent no. 7.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. The writ petition was filed by the private respondent/landlord, who has alleged deviations in the construction effected by the appellant/promoter. The deviations have been listed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) in an order dated 19^th September, 2025.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant/promoter would argue that his client has filed WPA No. 28453 of 2025, inter alia, challenging the order of the HMC dated 19^th September, 2025.

The appellant having filed an independent writ petition challenging the action of the HMC is entitled to have

2

his grievances heard before the order of demolition takes place.

In that view of the matter, this Court grants liberty to all parties to mention WPA 28453 of 2025 before the Single Bench for early consideration to ensure that interest of all parties are protected.

Until the consideration by the Single Bench of the aforesaid WPA 28453 of 2025 and subject to any order that may be passed by the Single Bench, the HMC shall stay its hands insofar as the order of demolition dated 19^th September, 2025.

It is made clear that the aforesaid order of stay of hands by the HMC shall continue for a period of one month from the date or any orders that may be passed by the Single Bench in WPA 28453 of 2025, whichever is earlier.

It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the order passed by the HMC and the Single Bench shall proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with law as it may deem, fit and proper in the facts of the case.

Since the respondents have not used any affidavit in opposition, the allegations contained in the stay petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted by them.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is disposed of. Consequently, connected pending application being CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of.

3

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order and duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)