Asking for time to produce documents is not the same as admitting that a construction is unauthorised, the Calcutta High Court has found while setting aside a Howrah Demolition Order and sending the matter back for a fresh, reasoned decision.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed a demolition order passed by the Assistant Engineer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation, holding that a letter relied on by the civic body as an “admission” of unauthorised construction contained no such admission, and has sent the matter back for a fresh hearing and a reasoned order within eight weeks [Sujoy @ Sujay Sarkar v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and Others].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, sitting as the Vacation Bench, disposed of the writ petition on November 10, 2026.
The letter at page 129
The Corporation had treated a writing dated April 3, 2025, annexed at page 129 of the writ petition, as an admission. The Court examined that document itself and held:
“On perusal of the document at page 129 issued by the petitioner, it does not appear that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner relating to unauthorized construction made by him. Rather, petitioner prayed for time to submit documents in respect of such construction.”
In view of this, the Court found it “apt to grant an opportunity to the petitioner” to place documents supporting the construction before the Corporation.
What the Court directed
- The demolition order dated September 28, 2026 is set aside.
- The Assistant Engineer, Borough-II, Howrah Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 5) shall hear the petitioner and respondent no. 7 within eight weeks and pass a reasoned order.
- Both the petitioner and respondent no. 7 are at liberty to produce relevant documents in support of their cases.
- No order as to costs.
The Court has not ruled on whether the construction is lawful. That question is left to the municipal authority on fresh consideration.
How the dispute reached the Court
The petitioner, Sujoy @ Sujay Sarkar, challenged a demolition order dated September 28, 2026 passed by the Assistant Engineer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. The Corporation had acted on a complaint lodged by the private respondent (respondent no. 7).
One of the reasons recorded in the order was that the petitioner had admitted, in writing, that the construction was unauthorised. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such admission was ever made before the Corporation about the nature of the construction.
Defending the order
The Corporation defended the order and argued that the petitioner had not produced any relevant document during the hearing to show that the construction was authorised.
Senior Advocate Buddhadeb Ghoshal, for respondent no. 7, supported the demolition order. He submitted that the Corporation had acted on his client’s complaint and that a civil suit filed by the petitioner was pending before the civil court.
Why the order matters
A demolition order is among the harshest steps a civic body can take against a property owner, and it must rest on a correct reading of the record. Here the Corporation treated a request for time as a confession. The Court checked the very document relied on and found that it did not say what the order claimed it said.
The order does not decide who is right on the construction. It restores a fair hearing: both the owner and the complainant get to place documents, and the Corporation must give reasons. Where a statutory authority relies on a misreading of a key document, remand for a fresh reasoned decision is the usual writ-court remedy.
Case Title: Sujoy @ Sujay Sarkar v. Howrah Municipal Corporation and Others [WPA 31462 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, Vacation Bench, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: November 10, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Shibaji Kumar Das and Dipendu Sarkar
For Respondent No. 7: Senior Advocate Buddhadeb Ghoshal with Advocates Biswajit Chowdhury and Ankita Mandal
For the Howrah Municipal Corporation: Advocates Sonal Sinha and Sandipan Das