Disposed¶20

Rashed Rashid v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Jul 2026WPA(P)/333/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Illegal/unauthorised construction; G+6 building; premises T-116B Park Street Kolkata 700017; Ward No. 65; Borough VII; Beniapukur police station; Kolkata Municipal Corporation; KMC Act 1980 Sections 400(1), 401, 401A; stop-construction notice; FIR dated 26.12.2025; D-sketch map; demolition; public interest litigation; direction to conclude proceedings within six weeks; criminal investigation; WPA (P) 333 of 2026; Calcutta High Court; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to conclude the proceedings initiated in respect of the building within a period of six weeks from date. ¶20

Rashed Rashid Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to conclude the proceedings initiated in respect of the building within a period of six weeks from date.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be directed to demolish the alleged illegal multi-storied (G+6) construction raised by the private respondents at premises No. T-116B, Park Street, Kolkata - 700017, Ward No. 65, Borough VII, constructed in violation of statutory provisions and the Building Rules. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Noting that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation has already initiated proceedings under Section 400(1) of the Act against the private respondents and that an FIR has been registered pursuant to which investigation is underway, the Court directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to conclude the proceedings initiated in respect of the building within a period of six weeks from date.

¶20

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid observation, WPA (P) 333 of 2026 is disposed of; urgent Photostat certified copy of the order to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest litigation writ petition (WPA (P) 333 of 2026, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side, High Court at Calcutta; order dated 22.07.2026) filed by Rashed Rashid praying for a direction to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demolish an allegedly illegal multi-storied (G+6) building at premises No. T-116B, Park Street, Kolkata - 700017, Ward No. 65, Borough VII, P.S. Beniapukur, constructed in violation of statutory provisions and the Building Rules. KMC submitted that inspection revealed violations; a notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was issued stopping construction; an FIR under Section 401A was lodged on 26th December, 2025; a notice under Section 400(1) was served, a D-sketch map prepared and proceedings are underway; the criminal case is under investigation. The bench (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J. and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) took the affidavit of service on record and directed KMC to conclude the proceedings in respect of the building within six weeks, disposing of the petition. No precedent cited; no monetary quantum involved.

¶1

Item No.- 13 22.07.2026 Court No. 1 Rohan

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

WPA (P) 333 of 2026

¶4

Rashed Rashid Versus

¶5

State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman Ms. Anushika Bharati Mr. Debangana Dey

¶7

… for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. D. N. Roy, GP Mr. Dibasish Basu, AGP Mrs. Sneha Dutta

¶9

… for the State Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh Ms. Manisha Nath … for the K.M.C. Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee

¶10

… for the Respondent No. 11

¶11

1. Affidavit of service filed in the Court be taken on record.

¶12

The present writ petition has been preferred in the nature of a public interest litigation, praying for a direction upon the concerned authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demolish the alleged illegal construction raised by the private respondents at premises No. T-116B, Park Street, Kolkata – 700017, Ward No. 65, Borough VII, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, Police Station – Beniapukur, Kolkata.

¶13

¶14

Mr. Deb Barman, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, alleges that the private respondents have constructed a multi-storied building (G+6) in violation of the applicable statutory provisions and the Building Rules. He submits that such illegality was brought to the notice of the competent authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation; however, no effective steps have been taken to address the issue. Given this situation, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶15

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, submits that upon inspection, it was found that there were certain violations of the Building Rules and deviations in the construction. Immediately thereafter, a notice under Section 401 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was issued directing the private respondents to stop all construction activities. He further submits that subsequently, an FIR under Section 401A of the Act was lodged on 26th December, 2025. Thereafter, a notice under Section 400(1) of the Act was served upon the private respondents, a D-sketch map was prepared, and the proceedings are presently underway.

¶16

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 11, submits that, till date, no application has been received from any of the occupiers of the building seeking electrification of any room or part thereof, and that no allegation has been made against the respondent no. 11,

¶17

¶18

nor has any relief been prayed for against the respondent no. 11.

¶19

Mrs. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the State, produces written instructions and submits that the criminal case registered against the accused persons is under investigation. She further submits that the investigation will be completed shortly and the report shall be placed before the competent Court of law.

¶20

Since the documents produced on behalf of the Corporation reveal that the Corporation has already initiated proceedings under Section 400(1) of the Act against the private respondents and that an FIR has also been registered, pursuant to which investigation is underway, we direct the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to conclude the proceedings initiated in respect of the building within a period of six weeks from date.

¶21

With the aforesaid observation, WPA (P) 333 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶22

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

¶23

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Rashed Rashid v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashed Rashid 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk Moktar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prasenjit Bala Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anil Shah Vs the Director, Botanical Survey India and Anr.

Abu Sohel Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Santosh Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.