Calcutta High Court Issues Interim Order to Halt Demolition
In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order on Sunday, effectively stopping the ongoing demolition of a building located in Amtala. This property houses the office of Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Member of Parliament, Abhishek Banerjee. The order was issued in response to a writ petition filed by Leaps and Bounds Private Limited, the company associated with Banerjee that owns the disputed building.
The interim order, passed by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, mandates that the state authorities desist from any further demolition activities until the matter is revisited or until the end of July 2026, whichever comes first. This decision was made after the Court found a prima facie case suggesting that the building’s owners may not have been given a fair chance to contest the demolition order.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, representing Leaps and Bounds, contended that the demolition was executed without following due process. He argued that the authorities did not provide the complaint or allow a proper hearing before commencing with the demolition on July 18, a Saturday. Datta emphasized that the authorities claimed the building lacked a sanctioned plan but failed to adhere to the mandatory legal procedures prior to the demolition.
Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra, representing the State, opposed the petition. He asserted that the petitioner had approached the Court without disclosing all pertinent facts and had not proven that the construction was legally authorized. Mitra pointed out that a notice of demolition had been served on June 30, and questioned the need for an urgent hearing on a Sunday.
Court’s Observations and Further Directions
Justice Chowdhury noted that the demolition order was based on the assumption that no building sanction had been obtained from the Zilla Parishad, as mandated by the 2004 Rules. However, the Court highlighted the absence of evidence showing that the petitioner had been informed of the complaint or given a fair chance to respond to the hearing officer’s recommendation that led to the demolition order.
More Read
Consequently, the Court restrained the authorities from proceeding with any further demolition activities and directed them to maintain the status quo until further review. However, the Court did not entertain allegations regarding unauthorized entry and looting by political workers, citing the lack of sufficient evidence and noting that no police complaint was disclosed in the writ petition.
Broader Implications
This interim order from the Calcutta High Court underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that due process is followed in administrative actions, particularly those involving significant political figures. The case will likely continue to attract public and legal scrutiny as it unfolds in the coming months.
