Disposed¶41

M/S Seven Point Motors Private Limited v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 May 2026WPA/7370/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Illegal construction; Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980; Section 400(1); stop work notice; demolition notice; Park Guest House; Ravi Sanei; premises no. 88 Park Street, P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata – 700017; municipal inaction; mandamus directions with timelines; WPA 22458 of 2024; WPA 7370 of 2026; writ petitions disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation: to conclude the pending proceedings against Ravi Sanei expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from communication of the order; and to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act against Park Guest House within a week and bring them to a logical conclusion within four weeks thereafter. ¶41

M/S Seven Point Motors Private Limited Vs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the Kolkata Municipal Corporation failed to take action against the alleged illegal construction at premises no. 88, Park Street, P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata – 700017, at the behest of Ravi Sanei and at the instance of Park Guest House, and what remedial directions should issue. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

As the report of the municipality affirmed by respondent no.5 dated 25th March, 2026 demonstrates illegal construction by Park Guest House, an appropriate proceeding under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act shall be initiated within a week from date and brought to a logical conclusion within four weeks thereafter.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the municipality has already proceeded against Ravi Sanei, no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping WPA 7370 of 2026 pending; the same stands disposed of with a direction upon the municipality to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶36

Key takeaways

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition (recorded in the operative paragraph as WPA 22485 of 2024) also stands disposed of.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.), by order dated 13.05.2026, disposed of two connected writ petitions concerning alleged illegal construction at premises no. 88, Park Street, P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata – 700017. The municipality's reports disclosed a stop work notice under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 dated 19th December, 2025 (details undisclosed) and ongoing proceedings against occupant Ravi Sanei, but were silent on Park Guest House. WPA 7370 of 2026 (M/s. Seven Point Motors Private Limited), questioning a demolition notice earlier stayed on 31st March, 2026, was disposed of with a direction to the municipality to conclude proceedings within two weeks; the municipality was further directed to initiate proceedings against Park Guest House within a week and conclude them within four weeks thereafter; WPA 22458 of 2024 (Abul Kalam) was likewise disposed of.

¶1

M/L 7-8 13.05.2026 sb Ct.3.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WPA 22458 of 2024

¶4

Abul Kalam

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶7

With

¶8

WPA 7370 of 2026

¶9

M/s. Seven Point Motors Private Limited

¶10

Versus

¶11

Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶12

Mr. Arif Ali

¶13

Mr. Tridib Bose

¶14

Mr. Sourav Roy Mr. H. Rahman

¶15

… For petitioner in WPA 22458 of 2024.

¶16

Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee

¶17

Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly

Ms. Tanusree Dey

… For KMC

Mr. Rahul Karmakar

Ms. Antalina Guha

… For the respondent no.7 in WPA 22458 of 2024 and the petitioner in WPA 7370 of 2026

¶23

When the writ petition, being WPA 22458 of 2024

¶24

was moved for the first time on 2^nd December, 2025, the municipality, despite service, did not cause appearance. Accordingly, this Court had directed Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned advocate who usually appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take appropriate instruction.

¶25

On the subsequent date, i.e. on 16^th December, 2025, it was urged on behalf of the municipality that

¶26

¶27

WPA 22458 of 2024

¶28

With

¶29

WPA 7370 of 2026

¶30

some more time is needed to file the status report. Accordingly, this Court directed the municipality to carry out an inspection concerning the illegal construction at premises no. 88, Park Street, P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata – 700017, upon prior notice to the parties. This order was also not adhered to by the municipal authorities. Accordingly, this Court by an order dated 9^th February, 2026, had directed the respondent no.5 to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which no steps had been taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. It is only thereafter that the municipality had filed a report. The report notes amongst others the allegation of illegal construction at the behest of Ravi Sanei at the ground floor of the aforesaid premises and at the instance of Park Guest House. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the said report vaguely indicated that a stop work notice has been issued under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) on 19^th December, 2025. The details of the stop work notice were not disclosed. Only the intimation slip wherein the police authorities were intimated was disclosed in the report. On the prayer of the learned advocate for the municipality an additional report was permitted to be brought on record since according to the learned advocate for the municipality the explanation sought for by the previous order had not been provided in the said report.

¶31

¶32

WPA 22458 of 2024

¶33

With

¶34

WPA 7370 of 2026

¶35

In the interregnum, another writ petition, being WPA 7370 of 2026 has been filed by one of the occupants of the said premises inter alia questioning the demolition notice.

¶36

By an order dated 31^st March, 2026, this Court had stayed such demolition notice. The municipality has since filed a further report, which is taken on record, and would submit that the municipality is already proceeding against one of the occupants of the said premises namely, Ravi Sanei. The report, however, is conspicuously silent as regards the steps taken by the municipality against Park Guest House. Noting from the learned advocate representing the municipality that the municipality has already proceeded against Ravi Sanei, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition, being WPA 7370 of 2026, pending and the same stands disposed of with a direction upon the municipality to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶37

Insofar as Park Guest House is concerned, since the report filed by the municipality affirmed by the respondent no.5 dated 25^th March, 2026 would demonstrate illegal construction, appropriate proceeding under the provisions of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act shall be initiated within a week from date and the same shall be brought to a logical conclusion within four weeks thereafter.

¶38

¶39

WPA 22458 of 2024

¶40

With WPA 7370 of 2026

¶41

With the above observations and directions the writ petition, being WPA 22485 of 2024 also stands disposed of.

¶42

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

¶43

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Demolition notice in respect of the said premises, questioned by an occupant (M/s. Seven Point Motors Private Limited) in WPA 7370 of 2026; subsequently stayed by this Court's order dated 31st March, 2026.¶35
Prior proceeding
Writ petition WPA 22458 of 2024 moved for the first time on 2nd December, 2025; the municipality, despite service, did not cause appearance; Court directed Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned advocate who usually appears for KMC, to take appropriate instruction.¶24
Prior proceeding
On 16th December, 2025 the municipality sought more time to file the status report; the Court directed the municipality to carry out an inspection of the alleged illegal construction at premises no. 88, Park Street, upon prior notice to the parties; this order was not adhered to.¶30
Prior proceeding
By order dated 9th February, 2026 the Court directed respondent no.5 to file an affidavit explaining why no steps had been taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation; only thereafter did the municipality file a report.¶30
Prior proceeding
The municipality's report noted the allegation of illegal construction at the behest of Ravi Sanei at the ground floor of the premises and at the instance of Park Guest House.¶30
Prior proceeding
The report vaguely indicated that a stop work notice had been issued under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 on 19th December, 2025, without disclosing its details.¶30
Prior proceeding
Only the intimation slip intimating the police authorities was disclosed in the report; on the municipality's prayer, an additional report was permitted to be brought on record.¶30
Prior proceeding
In the interregnum, WPA 7370 of 2026 was filed by an occupant of the premises questioning the demolition notice.¶35
Prior proceeding
By order dated 31st March, 2026 the Court stayed the demolition notice.¶36
Prior proceeding
The municipality filed a further report (taken on record) stating it is already proceeding against occupant Ravi Sanei.¶36
Prior proceeding
The further report was conspicuously silent on the steps taken by the municipality against Park Guest House.¶36

M/S Seven Point Motors Private Limited v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Seven Point Motors Private Limited v. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation 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

Ajoy Banerjee Vs Champdany Municipality and Ors.

Bikash Shaw and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tapan Sarkar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rajeev Sinha Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dt. Nabanita Banerjee Vs the Serampore Municipality and Ors.

Abul Kalam Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.