Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Surinder Singh & Ors vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 26 April, 2017
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Acharyya
MAT 1054 of 2016
With
CAN 2357 of 2017
Surinder Singh & Ors.
Vs.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
For the appellants : Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya
Mr. D. Mitra
For Kolkata Municipal : Mr. Barin Banerjee
Corporation Mr. Debangshu Mondal
For the respondent no. : Mr. Srijib Chakraborty
4. Mr. Chandrachur Chatterjee Ms. Riya Das Heard on : 26th April, 2017.
Judgement on : 26th April, 2017. Biswanath Somadder, J. :-
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.
This appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 22nd April, 2016, in WP 25003(W) of 2013 (Mrs. Piyalee Dash Sharma vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.).
The appellants before us were the private respondent nos. 4 to 10, before the writ Court.
It appears that the only reason for the appellants to prefer the instant appeal is an apprehension that their private rights vis-à-vis the writ petitioner may be affected in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Mrs. Piyalee Dash Sharma's writ petition, being the respondent no.4 herein. In this regard, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that a civil suit is pending between the parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, District - South 24-Parganas, being Title Suit No. 109 of 2016 (Lab Kumar Bose & Ors. vs. Alexander Prokhorov & Ors.).
Even a bare perusal of the judgment and order reveals that the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge was an order of an Executive Engineer of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 14th February, 2013. The question was whether the structure proposed to be erected by the writ petitioner needed sanction under the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 or not. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order dated 14th February, 2013, passed by the said Executive Engineer, directed a fresh reasoned order to be passed after hearing the parties within a certain time-frame.
Unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed, in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal no interference is usually warranted in respect of an order passed by a learned Single Judge. No such palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed upon a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. As such, we do not propose to interfere with the same.
However, we make it clear that nothing in the impugned judgment and order shall affect the private rights of the parties which form the subject matter for adjudication before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No.109 of 2016.
With the above observation, the appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) sb.