Calcutta HC: Demolishing Authority Cannot Foreclose Statutory Appeal Right Under West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act

The Calcutta High Court held that the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation could not direct demolition execution within three days while simultaneously foreclosing the petitioners' right of appeal under Section 266(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

The Calcutta High Court, on 10 July 2026, disposed of a writ petition challenging a demolition order passed by the Commissioner of the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation on 4 July 2026. Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, sitting singly, held that an adjudicating authority under the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 cannot pre-empt a party's statutory right to prefer an appeal by directing compliance within three days. The court read down the demolition order to afford the petitioners 30 days to either comply with it or prefer an appeal under Section 266(3) of the Act. The merits of the demolition order itself were left untouched and kept open for examination by the Appellate Authority.

The Demolition Order and the Rush to Court

The petitioners, Md. Ajmal Siddique and another, own or occupy premises at FE-20, Salt Lake City, Sector III, Kolkata. The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation issued a show-cause notice on 14 May 2026 under Section 266 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, alleging unauthorised construction at those premises.

The petitioners responded on 26 May 2026, stating that the sanctioned building plan and related municipal documents were in the custody of the petitioner's father, who alone could furnish a comprehensive reply. They sought time. The Corporation acceded and issued a fresh hearing notice on 24 June 2026, fixing the hearing for 27 June 2026 at 12:20 p.m. That notice, however, was served on the petitioners on 27 June 2026 at 6:00 p.m. — after the appointed time had already passed.

The hearing was not concluded on 27 June. The Corporation issued another notice on that same date, rescheduling the hearing to 4 July 2026. The petitioners appeared on 4 July 2026. The Commissioner, upon conducting the hearing, passed the demolition order on the same day and directed the petitioners to execute it within three days.

Citing extreme urgency, the petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court by way of WPA 16136 of 2026. The matter was mentioned and listed promptly.

What Each Side Argued

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, senior advocate for the petitioners, pressed two distinct grievances. First, he contended that the opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners was inadequate and that their objections were not considered before the demolition order was passed. Second, and more centrally, he pointed to Section 266(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, which recognises a right of appeal against an order under Section 266(1). He argued that the Commissioner's direction to execute demolition within three days effectively abridged that statutory appeal period and violated the petitioners' right to seek appellate redress.

The petitioners denied, in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the Corporation's claim that they had acknowledged unauthorised construction during the 4 July hearing.

Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee, appearing for the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, placed the sequence of notices before the court and submitted that the petitioners had been afforded adequate opportunity. He argued that during the 4 July hearing, the petitioners themselves acknowledged the unauthorised construction and sought regularisation. Since regularisation was not permissible in law, the demolition order was the only available course. He contended that if the court permitted the petitioners to prefer an appeal, it would “open a flood gate of litigation” and the municipality would be unable to enforce demolition orders against unauthorised constructions.

The Court's Reasoning on Statutory Appeal Rights

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury accepted the factual sequence as broadly established: the Corporation had notified the petitioners of alleged illegal construction under Section 266(1), the petitioners had responded and sought time, a hearing notice issued on 24 June 2026 was served only after the scheduled time on 27 June, the hearing was rescheduled and the petitioners appeared on 4 July 2026, and the Commissioner passed the demolition order that day.

The court identified the central question as whether the adjudicating authority was competent to decide the fate of any appeal the petitioners might prefer, simply on the basis of its own reading of the law. The Corporation had argued that because it found no scope to alter the decision, directing immediate implementation was warranted.

Justice Basu Chowdhury rejected that reasoning. The court held that where a statute recognises a right in a person aggrieved to prefer an appeal, the adjudicating authority cannot seal the fate of that appeal on the basis of its own understanding of the law. The right exists independently of what the authority at first instance believes the appellate outcome will be.

On the flood-gates argument, the court was direct: the submission that permitting a party to exercise its statutory appeal right would open flood gates of litigation was “misconceived.” The statutory period for preferring an appeal cannot be abridged on such a consideration. The adjudicating authority's confidence in its own order does not extinguish the legislature's choice to confer appellate recourse.

The court did not rule on whether the hearing before the Commissioner on 4 July 2026 was adequate or inadequate. It also did not go into the merits of the demolition order itself, expressly leaving those questions open before the Appellate Authority.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of with a specific direction: the demolition order dated 4 July 2026 passed by the Commissioner, Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation is to be read so as to provide the petitioners a period of 30 days within which they may act in accordance with the order or, if aggrieved, prefer an appeal from it.

The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the Commissioner's adjudication order, leaving it entirely open to scrutiny before the Appellate Authority if an appeal is filed. Since no affidavit had been called for, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted by the respondents.