Disposed¶17

Sri Kalyan Ghosh v. Howrah Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Apr 2026MAT/439/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAT 438 of 2024 & MAT 439 of 2024; Kalyan Ghosh v. Howrah Zilla Parishad; unauthorized construction; order of demolition; regularization; liberty to pray for regularization not patently illegal; bye-laws not under challenge; West Bengal Panchayat; representation not filed; fresh cause of action for non-compliance; appeals disposed of; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; both appeals disposed of without interference with the impugned order and with no order as to costs. ¶17

Sri Kalyan Ghosh Vs Howrah Zilla Parishad and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both appeals disposed of without interference with the impugned order and with no order as to costs.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated January 25, 2024 disposing of the two writ petitions suffers from patent illegality, in particular in granting respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 liberty to pray for regularization of their construction when, according to the appellant, regularization is not permitted in law. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The order impugned does not suffer from patent illegality.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Granting respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 liberty to pray for regularization is not patently illegal or perverse: the bye-laws were not under challenge, the learned single Judge passed no mandatory order for regularization and only granted liberty to make a prayer; if the West Bengal Panchayat law does not permit regularization, the bye-law itself would have to be challenged, and the authority shall decide any such prayer on the basis of the present legal position.

¶15

Key takeaways

If respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 failed to file their representation within the time fixed by the learned single Judge, that gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the appellant is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law alleging non-compliance; however, this is not relevant to the appeal, which concerns only the correctness of the impugned order.obiter¶13
The appeal court was not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at this stage, and both the appeals were disposed of.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT appeals against a learned single Judge's order dated January 25, 2024 disposing of two writ petitions concerning an alleged unauthorized construction. The single Judge had declined to interfere with the District Engineer, Howrah Zilla Parishad's demolition order but had granted respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 liberty to seek regularization (representation within two weeks; disposal by the authority within four weeks of receipt). Held: (i) the order impugned does not suffer from patent illegality; (ii) since the bye-laws were not under challenge and no mandatory order for regularization was passed, granting liberty to pray for regularization cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse - if the West Bengal Panchayat law does not permit regularization, the bye-law itself would have to be challenged, and the authority shall decide any such prayer on the basis of the present legal position; (iii) non-filing of the representation within the time fixed gives rise to a fresh cause of action on which the appellant may take steps in accordance with law alleging non-compliance, but that question was not relevant to the appeal, which concerned only the correctness of the impugned order. Both appeals disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

07.04.2026 M/L No.27-28 Court No.12 (gc)

¶2

MAT 438 of 2024 With MAT 439 of 2024

¶3

Sri Kalyan Ghosh Vs.

¶4

Howrah Zilla Parishad & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Supratick Syamal, Ms. Arkarupa Roy

¶6

…for the Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Apurba Kr. Ghosh, Mr. Supratim Laha, Mr. Rudranil Ghosh

¶8

…for the Private Respondents.

¶9

In our view, the order impugned does not suffer from patent illegality. Two writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated January 25, 2024. One writ petition was filed by the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 challenging an order of District Engineer, Howrah Zilla Parishad, inter alia , holding that the construction of the said respondents was unauthorized. The other writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking implementation of the order of demolition. Her Lordship did not interfere with the order of demolition and no order in favour of the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 protecting the said construction was passed. However, considering the bye-laws, Her Lordship allowed the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 to make a representation before the District Engineer, Howrah Zilla Parishad seeking regularization

¶10

¶11

of the said construction. It appears that Her Lordship further directed the District Engineer, Howrah Zilla Parishad to dispose of the representation of the respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The representation was to be made within two weeks from the date of the order of Her Lordship. The appellant submits that such representation was not made and as such the order of demolition should be implemented. It is further submitted by the appellant that Her Lordship could not have directed the authority to consider the issue of regularization. Regularization is not permitted in law.

¶12

The learned Advocate for the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 submits that the representation could not be filed due to pendency of the appeal. The bye laws provide for regularization.

¶13

In our view, if the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 have failed to file their representation within the time fixed by Her Lordship, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action and the appellant is at liberty to take steps in accordance with law, alleging non-compliance of the order of Her Lordship. However, this issue is not relevant for consideration by the appeal court as we are only concerned with the correctness of the order impugned. Secondly, when the bye laws are not under challenge. Granting a liberty to the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 to

¶14

¶15

pray for regularization, cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse. It is true that the West Bengal Panchayat does not permit regularization, but in that case the bye law would have to be challenged. Her Lordship had not directed the authority to allow regularization. Her Lordship had only granted liberty to the respondents to make a prayer for regularization within two weeks and the authority was directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. No mandatory order for regularization was passed. Undoubtedly, the authority shall decide such issue on the basis of the present legal position on the issue of regularization.

¶16

Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at this stage.

¶17

Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.

¶20

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

¶21

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

Sri Kalyan Ghosh v. Howrah Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kalyan Ghosh v. Howrah Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirupam Chandra Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Golam Kibria Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Chief Regional Manager,Hpcl & Anr. Vs Nilima Paul & Ors.

Dilip Kumar Konar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Burdwan Iron and Steel Company Private Limited & Ors.

Nikhil Kr. Singha Vs Suri Municipality and Ors.