The Calcutta High Court held an urgent sitting on a Sunday morning after the Acting Chief Justice assigned the matter to Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury for immediate hearing. The bench was seized of a writ petition (WPA 17624/2026) filed by Leaps and Bounds, a company linked to Abhishek Banerjee, seeking relief against the demolition of its immovable property situated at Amtala. The petitioner contends that the demolition was carried out by the concerned authorities in a manner that is gross, malicious and illegal, and that the action was arbitrary and unlawful.
According to the petition, the property in question accommodates the party office of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). Consequently, the AITC has been arrayed as a proforma respondent in the proceedings. The petitioner asserts that the demolition proceeded without adherence to statutory procedures, thereby infringing upon its property rights and the principles of natural justice.
Senior Advocate Kishore Dutta appeared on behalf of Leaps and Bounds, while Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee represented the All India Trinamool Congress. Upon taking up the matter, the bench observed that the petitioners needed to complete fresh service on the state respondents before the substantive hearing could proceed. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners to effect fresh service and adjourned the hearing to 1:30 p.m. on the same day.
The court’s order underscores the procedural requirement that, in writ proceedings challenging executive action, the petitioners must ensure that all relevant state authorities are properly served with notice of the proceedings. This direction aligns with the settled principle that a court cannot adjudicate on the merits of a claim unless the respondents have been afforded an opportunity to appear and respond.
The allegations raised by Leaps and Bounds invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which permits intervention when there is an alleged violation of fundamental rights or when executive action is claimed to be illegal, arbitrary or mala fide. By characterising the demolition as “gross, malicious and illegal,” the petitioner seeks to bring the impugned action within the ambit of such judicial review.
The matter’s listing on a Sunday reflects the court’s willingness to entertain urgent matters where delay may result in irreparable injury. The bench’s decision to adjourn after directing fresh service indicates that, while the urgency of the matter was acknowledged, the court insisted on compliance with procedural prerequisites before addressing the substantive allegations.
The case is presently pending, with the next hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. after the petitioners complete the requisite service. The outcome will depend on whether the court finds merit in the petitioner’s contention that the demolition was undertaken without lawful authority and in violation of procedural safeguards, or whether the authorities justify the action as being in accordance with applicable statutory provisions.