Rajendra Prasad Shaw vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the purported construction carried out at Premises No. 3B & 3C Ashu Babu Lane, Khiddirpore, Police Station – Watgunge, Ward No. 76, Borough-IX, Kolkata – 700023.

Though, a representation was made by the petitioner on 27^th May, 2024, since such representation was not considered, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WPA 24358 of 2024.

By an order dated 25^th June, 2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court noting that the petitioner at that stage was only interested in having his representation disposed of, by the said order, directed the authorities to dispose of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. In furtherance thereto, though belatedly, the authority had made over a copy of the order dated 18^th August, 2025, recording therein that the construction at Premises No. 3C, Ashu Babu Lane, Ward-76, Borough-IX had been carried out in accordance with the sanctioned building permit dated 14^th May, 2022, which was for a three storied; one prayer hall along with toilet was approved over the three storied building. The order further records, after considering structural stability certificate and all other documents, Special Officer (Building) passed an order under Section 400(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for regulatization of the deviated portion of the building, including the open terrace over the sanctioned building plan and side deviation duly approved by the Mayor-in-Council on 7^th February, 2025. It was subsequently found that the building was regularized upon deposit of necessary fees and charges.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner would submit that all these had been done behind the back of the petitioner and at a point of time when the petitioner’s representation was pending before the authorities. He further submits that the petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing prior to the regularization order being passed. In any event, the order of regularization has also not been served on the petitioner.

Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appears on behalf of the municipal authorities. He has placed before this Court the regularization order and has also made over a copy of the same to the petitioner.

Since the above regularization order has already been made over to the petitioner, I am of the view that nothing survives in the present writ petition, and the same is accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to such order in accordance with law, if so advised.

Report filed on behalf of the municipal authorities in Court today is taken on record.

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