RAMA PAUL SANDIP RAY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/29837/2024

Case under West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act ,2006 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0596132024

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

19th December 2024

Filing Number

WPA/29970/2024

Filing Date

12-12-2024

Registration No

WPA/29837/2024

Registration Date

13-12-2024

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

Miscellaneous ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act ,2006 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

RAMA PAUL SANDIP RAY

Respondent(s)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

19-12-2024

NEW MOTION

30-04-2026

TO BE MENTIONED

25-03-2026

TO BE MENTIONED

11-03-2026

UPGRADED MOTION

05-03-2026

UPGRADED MOTION

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

The High Court at Calcutta disposed of the writ petition after the Kolkata Municipal Corporation removed illegal stalls/shops from the footpath adjacent to the petitioner's premises at 441/4, Upendranath Banerjee Road, Kolkata. Respondent no.7's shop room was exempted upon undertaking to remove it within six months. The court clarified that this order does not prevent respondent no.7 from conducting business elsewhere legally or grant any rights to operate on footpaths subsequently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court at Calcutta disposed of the writ petition after the Kolkata Municipal Corporation removed illegal stalls/shops from the footpath adjacent to the petitioner's premises at 441/4, Upendranath Banerjee Road, Kolkata. Respondent no.7's shop room was exempted upon undertaking to remove it within six months. The court clarified that this order does not prevent respondent no.7 from conducting business elsewhere legally or grant any rights to operate on footpaths subsequently. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case