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
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
Filing Number
WPA/11355/2026
Filing Date
18-05-2026
Registration No
WPA/11488/2026
Registration Date
18-05-2026
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
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
FARUK KHAN ANUPAM SINGHA
Respondent(s)
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) BUILDING DEPARTMENT
THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) BUILDING DEPARTMENTBOROUGH V KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AMHERST STREE POLICE STATION
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts