The Calcutta High Court has set aside a demolition order passed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation against a property owner after finding that a document relied upon by the civic body did not contain any admission by him that the construction was unauthorized.

The Court noted that the petitioner had merely sought time to produce documents supporting the construction, contrary to the municipal authority's conclusion that he had admitted to carrying out unauthorized construction.

Justice Rishad Medora, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Sujoy alias Sujay Sarkar, directed the Assistant Engineer, Borough-II, Howrah Municipal Corporation, to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the complainant (respondent no. 7) and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The petitioner had challenged a demolition order dated September 28, 2026, passed by the Assistant Engineer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation.

Advocate Shibaji Kumar Das, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that one of the grounds for passing the demolition order was an alleged admission by his client that the construction was unauthorized. He, however, disputed having made any such admission before the municipal authorities.

The Corporation defended the demolition order, contending that the petitioner had failed to produce relevant documents during the hearing to establish that the construction was authorized.

Senior Advocate Buddhadeb Ghoshal, appearing for respondent no. 7, also supported the demolition order, submitting that the municipal authorities had initiated action following a complaint lodged by his client. He further pointed out that a civil suit filed by the petitioner was pending before the competent civil court.

Examining the demolition order, the Court found that the municipal authority had relied upon a purported admission made by the petitioner in a written communication dated April 3, 2025, annexed to the writ petition at page 129.

However, upon examining the document, the Court found that it did not contain any admission regarding unauthorized construction. Instead, the petitioner had merely sought time to submit documents concerning the construction.

In view of this discrepancy, the Court considered it appropriate to give the petitioner another opportunity to substantiate the legality of the construction before the municipal authority.

The Assistant Engineer, Borough-II, Howrah Municipal Corporation, was accordingly directed to hear both the petitioner and respondent no. 7 within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order. Both parties were granted liberty to produce relevant documents in support of their respective cases.

The demolition order dated September 28, 2026, was set aside.

Advocates Shibaji Kumar Das and Dipendu Sarkar appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Buddhadeb Ghoshal, along with advocates Biswajit Chowdhury and Ankita Mandal, represented respondent no. 7. Advocates Sonal Sinha and Sandipan Das appeared for the Howrah Municipal Corporation.