✦ Calcutta High Court

SANU NAG v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

SUJOY PAUL, SMITA DAS

Case at a glance

Bench
SUJOY PAUL, SMITA DAS

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1313. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, this PIL is disposed of. ( SUJOY PAUL, J. ) ( SMITA DAS DE, J. )

Judgment

Mr. Jahar Lal De, Mr. Supratim Dhar, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, ..for the State. Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, ..for KMC. Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Mr. Arindam Chatterjee ..for KMDA. Mr. Supratick Syamal ..for the Private Respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11.

1.

None for the petitioner.

2.

Nobody appeared for the petitioner on August 8, 2025 as well.

3.

On the last date the court was apprised that KMC initiated proceedings under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 against certain persons who were allegedly involved in raising unauthorized construction.

4.

Thus, this Court granted two weeks’ time to apprise the Court about the outcome of such proceedings. 2

5.

In turn, learned counsel appearing for the KMC submits that the appropriate committee requisitioned certain documents from the persons who have allegedly raised illegal construction.

6.

Those documents have not been filed till date.

7.

It is suggested that the matter may be disposed of by directing the appropriate/competent authority to undertake the proceedings initiated under Section 400(1) aforesaid to a logical end within a stipulated time.

8.

There is nobody to oppose this prayer.

9.

The innocuous prayer is allowed in the interest of justice.

10.

Accordingly, this PIL is disposed of by directing the competent authority to conclude the proceedings under Section 400(1) of KMC Act, 1980 expeditiously preferably within a period of 60 days from today.

11.

It shall be the duty of the learned counsel for KMC to apprise the competent authority about the order passed today.

12.

Needless to mention that if any unauthorized construction is found, the appropriate authority will take remedial action in accordance with law. 3

13.

With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, this PIL is disposed of. ( SUJOY PAUL, J. )

( SMITA DAS DE, J. )

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments