JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records including the complaint and the impugned order. 2. In this application under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner challenged the order dated 18.7.95 passed by Sri N. N. Mondal, learned Municipal & Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in case No. 22904C of 1993 on the complaint of the Deputy Licensing Officer, Calcutta Municipal Corporation under Ss. 620 and 580 read with s. 610 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for failure to obtain licence under s. 440/435 for the year 1992-93 rejecting the petition for dismissal of the complaint against him. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Receiver by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated April 18, 1975 in Suit No. 2539 of 1955 for collecting rents from various tenants who are monthly tenants within the meaning of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, in the disputed premises at 8, Beliaghata Main Road, Calcutta-700001 and as such his duty as Receiver appointed by the Hon,ble High Court cannot attract the provision of Ss. 435/440 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. 4. In any event, the petitioner being a Receiver appointed by the Hon'ble High Court, this court is of the view that no complaint can be lodged by the Deputy Licensing Officer, Calcutta Municipal Corporation in the aforesaid circumstances in respect of his capacity as Receiver, as above, without leave of this Hon'ble High Court, following the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court reported in 59 CWN p. 481 (Banwarilal Agarwalla vs. Subhomoy Basu). The case before the learned Magistrate has been pending more than two years but no attempt has been made on behalf of the complaint for taking leave of the Hon'ble High Court in respect of the complaint. The proceeding against the petitioner in not maintainable for the glaring fact that the provisions of Ss. 440/435 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act cannot be attracted in the case of the petitioner as stated above. 5. The complaint, in the form a cyclostyled copy betrays absolute non-application of mind of the complainant. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.7.95 is absolutely misonceived and is liable to be set aside. 7. The application is therefore allowed on contest and the impugned order dated 18. 7. 5. The complaint, in the form a cyclostyled copy betrays absolute non-application of mind of the complainant. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.7.95 is absolutely misonceived and is liable to be set aside. 7. The application is therefore allowed on contest and the impugned order dated 18. 7. 95, passed by Sri. N. N. Mondal learned Municipal & Metropolitan Magistrate (3rd Court) Calcutta in case No. 22904C of 1993 is set aside and the proceeding being case No. 22904C of 1993 so far as the petitioner concerned is quashed. 8. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Application allowed.