Calcutta HC Refuses Interim Stay on KMC Notice Postponing 54th Corporation Meeting, Seeks Affidavits on Whether Meeting Was Validly Held
A Vacation Bench of the Calcutta High Court declined to restrain the Kolkata Municipal Corporation notice that postponed its 54th meeting, directing both sides to file affidavits on whether the meeting was validly conducted on 22 May 2026.
A Vacation Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, comprising Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, on 3 June 2026 declined to pass any interim order restraining the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from giving effect to a notice dated 21 May 2026 that postponed the Corporation's 54th meeting. The meeting had been scheduled for 22 May 2026 at 2.00 p.m. The bench found that the core factual dispute — whether the postponement was valid, or whether a meeting was in fact held on 22 May 2026 — could not be resolved without documentary evidence, and directed the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit by 9 June 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner, Mala Roy, challenged the notice issued by the Municipal Secretary of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation postponing the 54th meeting of the Corporation. The meeting had been fixed for 22 May 2026. The postponement notice was issued on 21 May 2026 — one day before the scheduled meeting — and was communicated to all councillors on the same day.
The petitioner's case, argued by Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, was that the Municipal Secretary had no power or authority to postpone the meeting. Mr. Chakraborty went further and submitted that the 54th meeting was in fact duly held on 22 May 2026 at the scheduled time, and that several resolutions were adopted at that meeting.
The respondents were represented by Mr. D. N. Ray, Senior Advocate, who filed a statement of fact. The respondents' position was that the postponement notice was validly issued and duly communicated to all councillors, including the Mayor, who was fully aware of it. The respondents denied that any meeting was held on 22 May 2026.
The Legal Issue: Authority to Postpone and Validity of the Meeting
Mr. Chakraborty placed reliance on Sections 94 and 96 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 94, as argued, requires at least one meeting of the Corporation every month for the transaction of business. Section 96 requires that a list of business to be transacted at every meeting be sent to the registered address of each member at least 72 hours before the time fixed for the meeting.
The petitioner also relied on Rule 8 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1984. That rule provides that the notice of a meeting shall be issued by the Municipal Secretary under the direction of the Chairman to all members in the manner prescribed under Section 96, at least ten days before the date fixed for the meeting. On this basis, the petitioner argued that the Municipal Secretary, acting without the Chairman's direction and with only one day's notice, had no authority to postpone the 54th meeting.
The bench identified the larger question as two-fold: first, whether the postponement of the meeting scheduled for 22 May 2026 was valid; and second, whether the meeting that the petitioner claims was conducted on 22 May 2026 was itself valid.
Why the Bench Declined to Grant Interim Relief
When the bench queried whether the petitioner could produce documents to support the claim that the meeting was held on 22 May 2026, Mr. Chakraborty sought time to produce the resolution said to have been adopted at that meeting. The bench noted that at this stage, without the relevant materials on record, there was no scope to pass any interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned notice.
The bench's refusal to grant interim relief was tied directly to the absence of documentary evidence. The petitioner had asserted that resolutions were passed at the 22 May 2026 meeting, but those resolutions were not before the court. The respondents flatly denied that any meeting took place. With the factual foundation in dispute and unsubstantiated, the bench declined to freeze the position by injunction.
Directions Issued
The bench granted the petitioner an opportunity to place relevant materials on record. The petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit on or before 9 June 2026, with an advance copy to be served on the advocate for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The respondents were given liberty to file a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition to both the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit on or before 15 June 2026.
The bench also clarified that it would be open to the petitioner to take necessary steps with regard to the conduct of a meeting in terms of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Order
The Vacation Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in Mala Roy v. The State of West Bengal and Ors (WPO(P)/2/2026) declined to grant any interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the notice dated 21 May 2026. The petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit by 9 June 2026. The respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition by 15 June 2026. The matter was listed before the Regular Bench on 17 June 2026, subject to the convenience of that bench.