The Calcutta High Court held that administrative orders directing reconstruction and compensation for unlawful demolition by a public contractor are not to be interfered with in writ proceedings unless there is demonstrated perversity, material illegality, or irregularity—and where the petitioner failed to make contemporaneous objections regarding natural justice violations. The decision upholds prior precedent on the scope of judicial review and enforceability of administrative restitution, and shall serve as binding authority for subordinate courts in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23735/2025 of THE BISWA BHARATI CONSTRUCTION Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0480782025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms scope of judicial review and principles of natural justice |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law, Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when an administrative authority passes a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing, and no objection regarding violation of natural justice or lack of notice is raised at the appropriate stage, such grounds cannot be a valid basis for judicial interference in writ proceedings. Factual findings of unauthorized demolition and violation of legal provisions, if based on field verification and absent any shown perversity or illegality, are not to be interfered with by the writ court. The Court emphasized the necessity to raise grievances before the authority for them to be considered and the limited role of judicial review in administrative fact-finding. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 in WPA 16213/2025 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment relies on the prior direction of the High Court, the provisions of Section 44 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India, and the established law on judicial review scope. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The dispute involved an order requiring the petitioner construction company to reconstruct a demolished boundary wall and pay compensation, allegedly resulting from unlawful demolition during road construction. The petitioner claimed violation of natural justice principles as they were not notified before the field verification. The authority’s decision was based on a field verification report, and previous High Court directions were referenced. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and quasi-judicial authorities interpreting similar facts or alleging denial of natural justice |
| Follows | Judgment dated 04.08.2025 in WPA 16213/2025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the necessity of raising objections regarding procedural unfairness or denial of natural justice at the earliest possible stage before the competent authority.
- Confirms that writ courts will not interfere with administrative fact-finding where no contemporaneous substantiated objection is raised and no perversity or illegality is established.
- Affirms that restitution and compensation orders passed pursuant to judicial directions are enforceable through administrative mechanisms.
- Clarifies application of judicial review principles to factual findings and procedural conduct of administrative authorities acting under statutory and constitutional mandates.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first considered whether principles of natural justice were violated due to lack of notice before field verification by the Revenue Inspector.
- It examined if the petitioner had objected to the alleged violation at the appropriate stage before the authority (respondent no. 4).
- The Court found that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence or make any contemporaneous objection about lack of notice or breach of natural justice during proceedings before the authority.
- The authority’s order was based on prior High Court direction and statutory requirements (Section 44, West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973).
- The factual finding, based on the field verification report, was that the petitioner unlawfully interfered with the respondents’ property.
- The Court held that, in absence of material irregularity, illegality, or perversity, interference by writ court is not warranted.
- The judgment restated that allegations of violation of natural justice must be timely raised and substantiated to merit judicial review.
- Directions were issued for full compliance with earlier court orders, including restitution and compensation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that field verification was conducted without notice, violating principles of natural justice and prior High Court directions.
- Submitted that this non-compliance led to serious prejudice against the petitioner.
- Prayed for relief from the impugned order and enforcement of natural justice standards.
State (Respondent)
- Asserted no material irregularity in the impugned order.
- Maintained that the authority had considered merits of the respondents’ representations.
- Noted violation of Section 44 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, at the petitioner’s instance.
- Contended that there was no basis to interfere with the administrative order.
Private Respondents (Nos. 11 to 13)
- Adopted the arguments advanced by the State.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a construction company, was directed by the administrative authority to reconstruct a demolished boundary wall and pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to respondent nos. 11 to 13. This direction stemmed from findings that the demolition occurred unlawfully during road construction under the PMGSY Scheme and violated Section 44 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The petitioner alleged the field verification, which led to the adverse finding, took place without prior notice, in violation of natural justice and previous High Court instructions. However, the petitioner did not raise any contemporaneous objection to this alleged procedural lapse before the authority.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 44, West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973: The Court affirmed its application, finding that the petitioner’s actions in constructing the road and demolishing the wall were in violation of this provision.
- Articles 14, 21, and 300A, Constitution of India: The Court cited these constitutional guarantees, holding that the petitioner’s unauthorized act violated respondents’ fundamental and constitutional rights.
- No statutory “reading down” or expansive/narrow interpretation applied beyond the straightforward enforcement of Section 44 and constitutional provisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment. The decision adhered to established procedural norms, with no new guidelines or directions on evidence or maintainability.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed existing precedent regarding the need for timely objection to natural justice violations and the scope of judicial review.