Dismissed¶28

Pulak Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Feb 2026WPA/15613/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 15613 of 2025, High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side), Raja Basu Chowdhury J., decided 12.02.2026: writ petition dismissed without costs; Court refuses enquiry into municipality-sanctioned building plan of 8th August, 2022 alleged by petitioner to be interpolated; points to alternative remedy of cancelling permission under Section 217, West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993; defers to pending Municipal Appeal No. 6 of 2022 (status quo via misc. appeal No. 27 of 2023); holds petitioner not remediless.

What did the court decide?

There is no scope for the writ Court to enquire into the building plan which has been admittedly sanctioned by the municipality. ¶24

Pulak Ghosh Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court should direct an enquiry into the building plan sanctioned on 8th August, 2022 for the petitioner's premises, which the petitioner contends is a suspect document containing interpolations disclosed in the petition. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

There is no scope for the writ Court to enquire into the building plan which has been admittedly sanctioned by the municipality.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Where interpolations in the sanctioned-plan document are disclosed by the petitioner himself, the writ Court cannot on that basis call upon the State machinery to act.

¶24

Key takeaways

Section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 provides adequate provisions for cancellation of permission on the ground of misrepresentation, affording the petitioner an alternative statutory recourse.ratio¶24
Whether the sanctioned building plan relied on by the petitioner is interpolated or not is not a matter the writ Court need enter into, especially as the petitioner has already obtained possession of his portion of the owners' allocation constructed under the self-same plan.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), WPA 15613 of 2025; Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. (oral); heard and decided 12.02.2026. The petitioner, owner of premises No. 138, Thakur Nitya Gopal Road, Panihati (PS Khardah, North 24 Parganas), which his father originally owned and which he and his mother placed under a development agreement and power of attorney dated 12/13.12.2012 with developer-respondent No. 4, prayed for a direction upon respondent No. 5 to enquire into the building plan sanctioned on 8th August, 2022, alleging it to be a suspect, interpolated document taken advantage of by the developer to obtain stay. History: earlier writ WP 7256(w) of 2016 over an unauthorised wall ended in an 18.07.2016 direction to the Board of Councilors under Section 218, West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993; a final demolition order followed on 05.08.2022; respondent No. 4's Municipal Appeal No. 6 of 2022 (Civil Judge (JD), 2nd Court, Barasat) drew a status-quo order dated 04.03.2023 in misc. appeal No. 27 of 2023 (Fast Track 1st Court, Barrackpore), and the stay application in Municipal Appeal No. 6 of 2022 was rejected on 16.03.2023. Held: (i) there is no scope for the writ Court to enquire into a plan admittedly sanctioned by the municipality, nor to summon State machinery on interpolations disclosed by the petitioner; (ii) Section 217 of the said Act adequately provides for cancellation of permission on the ground of misrepresentation; (iii) with the Municipal Appeal pending and the appeal Court in seisin, any writ order would interfere with its merits, and the petitioner is not remediless — all issues fall for the appeal Court's consideration at hearing. Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present :

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

¶5

WPA 15613 of 2025

¶6

Pulak Ghosh versus

¶7

The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶8

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal Mr. Noorul Amin SArdar Mr. Archisman Singh Mr. Mohinur Mallick
For the respondent No. 2	:	Mr. Arka tilak Bhadra
For the respondent Nos. 3-4	:	Mr. Soumyajit Bhatta
For the State	:	Mr. Susanta Pal Ms. Tanima Sengupta
Heard on	:	12.02.2026
Judgment on	:	12.02.2026

¶9

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent No. 5 to enquire with regard to the building plan which the petitioner claims to have been allegedly sanctioned on 8th August, 2022.

¶11

It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner is the owner in respect of holding No. 54 being premises No. 138 Thakur Nitya

¶12

¶13

WPA 15613 of 2025

¶14

Gopal Road, Post Office-Panihati, Police Station-Khardah, North 24 Parganas which was originally owned by his father Aloke Ghosh. It is also the petitioner’s case that the petitioner along with his mother during her lifetime on 12th December, 2012 had entered into a development agreement with the respondent No. 4 for constructing a G+3 storied building on the above premises and on 13th December, 2012, executed a power of attorney thereby authorizing the said respondent No. 4 to construct and sell residential flats/units/garages etc. to the intending purchasers. According to the petitioner, there are other cosharers in respect of the aforesaid property who had also executed separate development agreements and power of attorney in favor of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner claims that after completion of the building, the respondent No. 4 had delivered the flat measuring 600 sq.ft. to the petitioner from the land owners’ allocation. It is only after taking possession that the petitioner observed that the respondent No. 4 had erected a wall on the common space of the building at the western side of the flat unauthorisedly, which was causing obstruction to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner had raised an objection. Subsequently, the petitioner had made written representation before the municipality. Since the municipality did not take action, complaining in-action on the part of the municipality, the petitioner along with his mother Mala Ghosh (since deceased)

¶15

¶16

WPA 15613 of 2025

¶17

had filed a writ petition which was registered as WP 7256(w) of 2016. By an order dated 18th July, 2016, the above writ petition was disposed of by directing the Board of Councilors to take appropriate action in terms of Section 218 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

¶18

In furtherance to the aforesaid, a proceeding was initiated under Section 218 of the said Act and ultimately, the same resulted in the final demolition order dated 5th August, 2022. Challenging the aforesaid order, the private respondent No. 4 had filed Municpal Appeal being No. 6 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat. Since the learned Court refused ad interim injunction, an appeal was filed before the Fast Track 1st Court at Barrackpore which was registered as misc. appeal No. 27 of 2023. By an order dated 4^th March, 2023, the learned appeal Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the order of demolition. Subsequently, the application for stay which was pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Barrackpore in Municipal Appeal No. 6 of 2022 was rejected by order dated 16^th March, 2023 as the matter was already sub-judice and the appeal Court had already granted stay.

¶19

The petitioner now contends that the sanctioned building plan dated 8th August, 2022 issued in relation to the aforesaid premises is a suspect document and that the private respondent

¶20

¶21

WPA 15613 of 2025

¶22

being the developer taking advantage of such document, had obtained stay. It is this particular sanctioned building plan in respect whereof he seeks an enquiry to be conducted, as according to him, there are interpolations on the sanctioned building plan which he has disclosed in this petition.

¶23

The municipality is represented. The learned advocate for the municipality would submit that the municipality had duly sanctioned a building plan for construction at premises No. 138, Thakur Nitya Gopal Road, Post Office-Panihati, Police StationKhardah, North 24 Parganas.

¶24

Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record and although the petitioner would try to contend that this Court should enquire into the copy of the sanctioned building plan though State machinery, I am of the view there is no scope for this Court to enquire into the plan which has been admittedly sanctioned by the municipality. If there are certain interpolations in the document which has been disclosed by the petitioner, this Court cannot on the basis thereof call the State machinery to act. In any event, the provisions of Section 217 of the said Act provide for adequate provisions for cancellation of permission on the ground of misrepresentation. This apart, the matter is sub-judice in the Municipal Appeal and the learned Court is in seisin of the matter. Further in the instant case, I find that the petitioner has already obtained possession of

¶25

¶26

WPA 15613 of 2025

¶27

the portion of the owners’ allocation in respect of the building which has been constructed pursuant to the self-same sanctioned building plan. As to whether the sanctioned building plan which the petitioner seeks to rely on, is interpolated or not, in my view, is not necessary for this Court to enter into. Further since an appeal in this regard is pending, any order passed by this Court is likely to interfere with the merits of the appeal. The petitioner is not remediless, all such issues can be considered by the appeal Court at the time of hearing of the appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶29

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

¶30

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

¶31

Sayandeep A.R. (Court)

Pulak Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulak Ghosh v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hemant Kanoria and Anr. Vs Punjab National Bank

Sunil Kanoria Vs Dbs Bank India Limited

Dilip Kumar Konar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Safiuddin Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Keshab Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.