FARUK KHAN ANUPAM SINGHA vs KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. — WPA/11488/2026
Case under Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act ,1980 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0223952026
Filing Number
WPA/11355/2026
Filing Date
18-May-2026
Registration No
WPA/11488/2026
Registration Date
18-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
DEMOLITION ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
19-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.FARUK KHAN ANUPAM SINGHA
Respondent(s)
-
1.KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
-
2.THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
-
3.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) BUILDING DEPARTMENT
-
4.THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) BUILDING DEPARTMENTBOROUGH V KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
-
5.THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AMHERST STREE POLICE STATION
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-May-2026
Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu ChowdhuryView PDF
The High Court at Calcutta quashed the demolition notice dated 13th May, 2026 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation, finding that the municipality attempted to execute the demolition order before the statutory period for the petitioner to appeal had expired, thereby rendering any appeal infructuous. The court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the flagrant statutory violation justified exercise of writ jurisdiction, while directing the petitioner to pursue expedited consideration of his stay application pending before the Building Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-May-2026
New Motion
Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
-
18-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPA/11488/2026
The High Court at Calcutta quashed the demolition notice dated 13th May, 2026 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation, finding that the municipality attempted to execute the demolition order before the statutory period for the petitioner to appeal had expired, thereby rendering any appeal infructuous. The court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the flagrant statutory violation justified exercise of writ jurisdiction, while directing the petitioner to pursue expedited consideration of his stay application pending before the Building Tribunal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts