Calcutta High Court
Bhagwatdas Jaiswal vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 16 February, 2026
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
OD-3
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/6/2026
WITH WPO/491/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2026
BHAGWATDAS JAISWAL
VS.
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
Date : 16th February, 2026
Appearance :
Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. R. Karnani, Adv.
Ms. Sonali Ghosh Basu, Adv.
...for appellant
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kallol Saha, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Akash Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Nabanita Chakraborty, Adv.
...for respondent nos.18&19
Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. D.K. Poddar, Adv.
…for respondent nos.16&17
2
Mr. Sudarsan Roy, Adv.
…for respondent nos.7-15
Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Das, Adv.
…for KMC
1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 22 nd January, 2026 passed
by a Single Bench of this Court. The said order was passed after this
Court had directed in APO 85 of 2025 on 6 th January, 2026 that the
Single Bench must first decide upon both the issues of maintainability of
the writ petition and also consider interim orders.
2. The case that are more fully described in the Court’s order dated 6 th
January, 2026 (supra). The question that comes for consideration in this
appeal is whether the respondent-Metro Retail (Branch) can lawfully run
a garment shop at the premises that was initially leased out for running
a cinema house. The KMC had also granted permission only for running
a cinema house at the said premises. The lessor has granted lease of the
property for running of a Cinema House.
3. When the matter travelled back to the Single Bench after this Court’s
order dated 6th January, 2026, interim orders were pressed for on the
following grounds.
a) The Special Officer (Building), vide order dated 4 th December, 2024
had declined change of user of the said premises from a cinema hall
to run a garment shop.
3
b) The said decision of the Special Officer (Building) was confirmed by
the Mayor-in-Council in its order dated 13 th December, 2024.
c) The order of the Mayor-in-Council came to be challenged by the
respondent-Metro Retail before the Municipal Building (Tribunal).
4. The said appeal is pending. In the meantime, the garment shop owner
M/s. Metro has obtained online a certificate of enlistment for running a
garment shop albeit with an undertaking that the user of the property is
informed by appropriate sanctions from the KMC.
5. As already indicated hereinabove, the KMC has rejected permission for
change of user of building from a cinema house to that of a garment
shop.
6. A number of questions have been raised by Mr. Bikash Ranjan
Bhattacharya, learned senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Metro. It is
argued that while the permission for running a cinema hall may require
more stringent and strict conditions, running of a garment shop, does
not, given the difference in footfall. There are some employees in the
garment shop and the same is frequented by customers but not at the
volume of people attending a cinema house.
7. He, therefore, submits that the order of the Special Officer (Building) is
ex facie illegal and contrary to Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal
Corporation Act.
4
8. It is this issue that could form part of the main arguments in the final
hearing of the writ petition before the Single Bench.
9. However, having regard to the principles of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 where
the Court, confronted with a prayer for interim order, is required to
assess the prima facie case made out and balance of convenience, this
Court is of the view that the Single Bench ought not to have permitted
the petitioner to run the garment shop based on an online certificate of
enlistment obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of material
facts. The certificate of enlistment could not have been applied for in the
teeth of the order of the Special Officer (Building) refusing permission to
convert the user of the premises from a Cinema House to that of a
garment shop.
10. While it is true that the livelihood of some persons may be affected,
compliance of provisions of the statute, is paramount and mandatory
pre-condition. Running a garment shop in the backdrop of an order of
the Special Officer (Building), confirmed by the Mayor-in-Council,
disallowing change of user of the building, is ex facie illegal and cannot
be permitted.
11. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the view that the garment
shop at the said premises cannot be allowed to run. It shall be shut down
by the KMC forthwith. The respondent-M/s. Metro Retail shall not run
the garment shop, and must shut it down.
5
12. The aforesaid are only interim orders. The same shall abide by the final
result of the writ petition, where the parties are at liberty to canvass all
arguments available to them in law, including maintainability of the writ
petition.
13. The Single Bench is requested to take up the matter on the day already
fixed after affidavits and hear and dispose of the writ petition without
granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.
14. It is made clear that the aforesaid views expressed by this Court are
prima facie and the Single Bench for reasons that it may feel, may take
any view in the matter, permitted in law and in the facts of the case.
15. With the aforesaid observations, APO 6 of 2026 is disposed of. The
connected application also stands disposed of.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.)
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
SN.
AR(C R)
