In a special Sunday hearing, the Calcutta High Court ordered an immediate halt to the demolition of a property at Amtala that houses the parliamentary office of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee. The interim relief came after the Court found, at a preliminary stage, that the property owner may not have been given a proper opportunity to respond before the demolition order was executed.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed by Leaps and Bounds Private Limited, which owns the building in South 24 Parganas. The company challenged the demolition initiated by the district authorities, arguing that the statutory procedure had not been followed.
Senior Advocate Kishore Datta submitted that although a notice had been issued earlier, neither the complaint nor the hearing officer's recommendation was supplied to the petitioner. He argued that demolition began without giving the owner a meaningful opportunity to present its case.
The State, represented by Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra, opposed the petition, maintaining that the authorities had issued a notice on June 30 and that the petitioner had not established the legality of the construction.
Court's Observation
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the materials available before the Court did not indicate that the petitioner had received the complaint or the recommendation forming the basis of the demolition order.
The bench observed,
"Status quo as regards the nature, character and possession should be maintained... the respondents should desist from all further demolition work."
The Court also questioned the timing of the demolition after being informed that the exercise was continuing while the matter was being heard.
Decision
Granting interim protection, the High Court directed the authorities to stop all further demolition and maintain status quo until the next hearing or until the end of July 2026, whichever is earlier.
The Court, however, declined to pass any interim order on allegations of looting and unlawful entry into the premises, observing that those claims involved disputed factual issues with a possible criminal dimension and would require separate consideration.
