Ramtanu Das vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day''s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th March, 2017, rendered by the learned Single Judge in WP 24579 (W) of 2015 (Ramtanu Das vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.).

The appellant before us was the writ petitioner.

It appears that the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, namely, the writ petitioner, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, the State as well as the private respondent no.8, was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:- "However, this court feels that once a notice has been issued, the Municipal Corporation should initiate a proceeding under Section 400(1) of the Act and after affording an (sic; read, a) reasonable opportunity of hearing to the private respondent shall pass an order in accordance with law. The Municipal Commissioner shall see that such proceeding is initiated within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall be brought to its logical end within four weeks therefrom.

It is open to the Municipal Commissioner to pass an independent order taking into account the provisions contained under Rule 3(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Building Rules and the other materials produced by the private respondent.

With these observations, the writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."

Even a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals no such palpable infirmities or perversities, which would warrant any interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. The impugned judgment and order has also been rendered with cogent reasons.

As such, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.