The Calcutta High Court on Sunday ordered the authorities to immediately halt further demolition of the building housing All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) MP Abhishek Banerjee’s Diamond Harbour parliamentary office at Amtala in South 24 Parganas, directing all parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the property until the next hearing or the end of July, whichever is earlier.
In a special Sunday sitting, the single-judge Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury passed the interim order while hearing an urgent writ petition filed by Leaps and Bounds Private Limited, the company that owns the property and is associated with Banerjee, challenging the demolition proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the statutory procedure. The All India Trinamool Congress (AITC), whose party office functions from the premises, was impleaded as a proforma respondent.
The matter was specially assigned for hearing on a court holiday following an urgent mention by the petitioners. During the initial hearing, the State authorities were not represented, prompting the Court to direct fresh service of notice before taking up the matter again later in the day. Subsequently, Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate Kishore Datta represented Leaps and Bounds Private Limited and Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharyya appeared for the TMC.
The petitioners contended that the demolition drive was undertaken in breach of the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under the applicable local body laws governing unauthorised constructions. It was argued that although notices had allegedly been issued, the owner was neither supplied with the complaint nor furnished with the hearing officer’s report or recommendation on the basis of which the demolition order dated July 15 was passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Executive Officer, South 24 Parganas. The petitioners maintained that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted before coercive action commenced, amounting to a violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem.
The petitioner further submitted that under the statutory framework regulating building permissions under the Zilla Parishad Rules, the competent authority is required to consider the hearing officer’s recommendation and provide the affected party with a reasonable opportunity to contest the allegations before passing any adverse order. It was argued that the authorities proceeded with demolition without complying with these mandatory procedural safeguards. The petitioners also alleged that movable assets, including computers, office equipment, documents and other materials, were removed from the premises during the demolition in the presence of officials.
Opposing the plea, the State argued that the petition had not been filed with clean hands and that the petitioner had failed to establish the legality of the construction. It submitted that notices had been served on June 30 and July 7 regarding the alleged unauthorised structure and that the demolition action was initiated only after due process. The State also contended that the matter had been listed on extremely short notice, leaving insufficient time to place the complete records before the Court, and sought that it be heard by the regular Bench.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the urgency of carrying out the demolition while the dispute was pending judicial consideration. The Court also observed that the records necessary to determine whether statutory requirements had been followed were not available before it.
After considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the Court recorded a prima facie view that there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had been supplied with the complaint or the hearing officer’s recommendation, or that an adequate opportunity to respond had been granted before the demolition order was executed. Pending further adjudication, the Court restrained the authorities from carrying out any further demolition and directed maintenance of status quo.
The Court also directed the State Government to produce the entire records relating to the property, including documents concerning the alleged absence of a sanctioned building plan and the demolition proceedings. The matter has been directed to be listed before the regular Bench for further hearing.
However, the Court declined to grant any interim relief regarding the petitioner’s allegations that political workers and miscreants entered the premises and removed movable property while police personnel remained passive. Observing that these allegations involved disputed questions of fact with possible criminal implications, and noting that no police complaint had been placed before it, the Court held that no directions could be issued on that aspect in the present writ proceedings.
The demolition drive had commenced on July 18 after the South 24 Parganas district administration alleged that the five-storey building on Diamond Harbour Road had been constructed without an approved building plan and in violation of the applicable statutory rules. Heavy police deployment, Central Armed Police Forces, fire service personnel and demolition machinery were deployed during the operation.
Abhishek Banerjee has maintained that the building, which functions as his parliamentary constituency office, was constructed on legally purchased land after obtaining all necessary permissions and has alleged that the demolition was politically motivated. According to previous Enforcement Directorate proceedings in another matter, Banerjee has been described as the Chief Executive Officer of Leaps and Bounds Private Limited. The legality of the construction as well as the validity of the demolition proceedings will now be examined by the High Court during the subsequent hearings.
The post Calcutta High Court orders status quo on demolition of AITC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s office appeared first on India Legal.