JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Both these matters are connected with each other as they involve same premises, therefore, they are disposed of by the common order. Tender No. 193 is a mandamus appeal directed against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2nd February, 2000 in W.P. No. 162 of 2000 and W.P. No. 21583 (W) of 1999 is a public interest litigation with regard to the same premises. Therefore, both these matters involve same premises. Therefore, they are disposed of by the common order. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal being Tender No. 193 of 2000 is that the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus against the order passed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation with regard to Premises No.3, Burdwan Road, Calcutta not to take any action on the basis of the communication dated 12th January, 2000. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of this premises i.e. Premises No.3, Burdwan Road, which was previously numbered as 2/3, Burdwan Road; 10/5, Alipore Park Place and 3, Burdwan Road, they were amalgamated as Premises No.3, Burdwan Road, on 18th July, 1983. This was challenged before the Controller, Thika Tenancy by the tenants Rahman Bux Mullick, Abdul Gafur Mullick and Khoda Bux Mullick claiming that they are thika tenants. This were rejected by the Controller, Thika Tenancy on 18th December, 1987. Thereafter, a no objection certificate was also given by the Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 in favour of Kelvin Jute Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Kelvin). Thereafter, when this company had gone into liquidation, the matter was taken up by the B.I.F.R. and an order was passed on 5th September, 1989 sanctioning the scheme filed by the Operating Agency for revival of Kelvin which included amongst others the sale of the premises in question. One Janardhan Senapati and Rukmini Senapati filed a suit being Title Suit No. 287 of 1991 for a declaration and permanent injunction praying, inter alia, that the defendants have no right to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff along with joint amenities. They also filed an application for injunction. Kelvin sold and transferred this premises to the appellant No.1, M/s. Granito Ceramics Limited. They also filed an application for injunction. Kelvin sold and transferred this premises to the appellant No.1, M/s. Granito Ceramics Limited. On 23rd March, 1994, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation mutated the name of the appellant No.1 in its record as the owner of the said premises. Thereafter, on 7th December, 1994 a no objection certificate was granted to the appellant by the Competent Authority under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for construction of building at the said premises. On 26th August, 1997, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation sanctioned the building plan being Building Permit No. 32 (BIX), which is valid upto 25th August, 2000. The appellants were registered as promoters and granted permission to construct building on the said premises under the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 544 of 1998 and the writ petition was disposed of by Justice Ruma Pal (as she then was) by appointing a Surveyor for constructing a boundary wall and directed the police authorities to take necessary steps to prevent unlawful activities in the suit premises. In pursuance of that order demarcation of the suit premises was done. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by some interested parties which was numbered as A.S.T. No. 383 of 1998, praying for a direction to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority for stay of construction in the said premises. The petition was disposed of by this Court. Thereafter, Janardhan Senapati filed another petition before this Court making a grievance that the Controller, Thika Tenancy did not permit them to put up their case properly. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Controller. Thika Tenancy to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and others and a further direction was given that in the meanwhile status quo shall be maintained till the representation of these persons are disposed of by the Controller, Thika Tenancy. Two suits were also filed by some interested parties before the Alipore Court and the same was subsequently withdrawn. Two suits were also filed by some interested parties before the Alipore Court and the same was subsequently withdrawn. On 8th September, 1998, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the appellant under Section 401 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing to stop forthwith all construction work till adjudication by the Controller in pursuance of ex parte order passed by this Court (Hon'ble Justice N.K. Mitra, as he then was) by order dated 1st July, 1998. 3. Since the Calcutta Municipal Corporation refused to withdraw the notice issued under Section 401 of the Act in spite of the order passed by the Controller, Thika Tenancy on 10th December, 1998, dismissing the petition of Bharatias, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner being W.P. No. 252 of 1999 and it was disposed of by Justice Prabir Kumar Samanta directing the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to reconsider withdrawal of the said notice issued under Section 401 of the Act within 4 weeks from that date. On 20th May, 1999, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation withdrew the notice to stop work issued by them under Section 401 of the Act. Thereafter, on 17th August, 1999, the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department informed the Municipal Commissioner that Premises No. 2/3, Burdwan Road stood vested in the State and asked the Municipal Commissioner to initiate cancellation proceeding of the amalgamation of Premises No. 2/3, Burdwan Road. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication on 31st August, 1999, the Deputy Commissioner (R-HQ) issued a notice to the appellant intimating them that they would be giving hearing prior to amalgamation of Premises No.3, Burdwan Road, Calcutta. On 15th November, 1999, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dropping the proceeding of de-amalgamation. Thereafter, the Municipal Commissioner informed the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department about the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15th November, 1999. Again on 3rd December, 1999, the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioner that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is incorrect and he requested not to drop the proceedings for cancellation of amalgamation. The Municipal Commissioner informed the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department expressing his inability to de-amalgamate the said premises. The Municipal Commissioner informed the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department expressing his inability to de-amalgamate the said premises. On 22nd December, 1999, the Joint Secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department informed the Municipal Commissioner that Premises No. 2/3, Burdwan Road is a thika land and the report of the Controller, Thika Tenant was incorrect. (Meanwhile a public interest litigation, was also filed by one Ajoy Mukherjee and Others that the amalgamation of three premises be cancelled and the sanctioned building plan issued by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation be rescinded and the appellant, Granito should be restrained from proceeding with the construction). Thereafter, on 12th January, 2000, a notice was issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner to the appellant fixing the date of hearing on 19th January, 2000, for cancellation of mutation and amalgamation of Premises No.3, Burdwan Road, Calcutta. Against this order another writ application being W.P. No. 162 of 2000 was filed before this Court challenging these notices issued on 22nd December, 1999 and 12th January, 2000. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge passed an order directing to maintain status quo for a period of one week from date. On 17th January, 2000 at 4:05 P.M., the Calcutta Municipal Corporation issued another notice under Section 401 of the Act directing to stop construction work of the main gate of the premises. Thereafter, the appellant filed a supplementary affidavit and the matter was taken up by the learned Single Judge on 19th January, 2000. After hearing the Counsel on behalf of the respective parties, it was realized by the Counsel of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation that there was a communication gap and that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation could not have issued notice under Section 401 of the Act, and withdrew that notice. However, the learned Single Judge directed that status quo be maintained for a period of 3 weeks. On 2nd February, 2000, the learned Single Judge further passed an order of status quo with regard to thika tenancy proceeding as also on further construction. Being aggrieved by this interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. On 2nd February, 2000, the learned Single Judge further passed an order of status quo with regard to thika tenancy proceeding as also on further construction. Being aggrieved by this interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. Meanwhile a public interest litigation was filed by Ajoy Mukherjee challenging amalgamation of Premises as 3, Burdwan Road on the ground that Premises No. 2/3, Burdwan Road stood vested in Government under Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1981). Hence the appeal filed by the appellants against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and the public interest litigation filed by Ajoy Mukherjee and Others related to the same premises, therefore, both were clubbed together. The interim order passed on 2nd February, 2000 by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge before us reads: – "Let there be an order of status quo with regard to the Thika Tenancy proceeding and also with regard to further construction made by petitioner for a period of three weeks from date. Let the matter appear two weeks hence as for orders." 4. At the outset on perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the stay order has already outlived its utility as it was for a period of three weeks only and the same has expired long back. Therefore, we do not intend to enter into the controversy with regard to other issues which arises in the matter because the main writ petition filed by the petitioners is still pending before the learned Single Judge. In fact, the grievance of, the petitioners in filing the aforesaid petition was to challenge the order passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner in pursuance of the communication received from the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal that Premises No. 2/3, Burdwan Road that this is a thika land and stood vested in the State of West Bengal on 18th January, 1982 under the Thika Tenancy Act, 1981 and thereby directing the Municipal Corporation to record this premises in the assessment registry of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in favour of the State of West Bengal and the amalgamation of Premises Nos. 2/3 and 3, Burdwan Road and 10/5, Alipore Park Road is liable to be cancelled. 2/3 and 3, Burdwan Road and 10/5, Alipore Park Road is liable to be cancelled. In pursuance of that notice was issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner giving opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as to why the amalgamation of the premises be not cancelled. It is against this order the present writ petition was filed. The Municipal Corporation has already granted the permission for construction but on account of the communication received from the Government that this land stood vested in the State of West Bengal under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1981, no further construction could be made. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners was to stay operation of this order, instead of that an order of status quo was granted directing the petitioners also to maintain status quo and not to proceed with the construction. Thereafter, a notice by the Municipal Corporation under Section 401 of the Act was also issued but that order was subsequently withdrawn. Be that as it may, the petitioners wanted order in his favour to restrain the Calcutta Municipal Corporation from proceeding with the hearing of the matter in pursuance of that notice issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner but instead of that stay order was passed against the petitioners to maintain status quo and not to proceed with the construction. This appears to be not intended by the learned Single Judge. Our attention was invited to a communication dated 16th November, 1999 from the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister informing Sri M.K. Jalan that the matter has been examined by the Deputy Commissioner, Revenue (Head Quarter) who has since dropped the proceeding for cancellation of the amalgamation of two premises in Premises No.3, Burdwan Road. It is pointed out that when the matter have already been dropped as per the communication from the Secretary to the Chief Minister it is strange that how proceeding has again started. We called the original file of State and on perusal of that file it appears that action was initiated for vesting this land in the State of West Bengal and a note sheet was prepared by the Secretary-in-Charge and was placed before the Minister concerned but in pursuance of that no order was passed. We called the original file of State and on perusal of that file it appears that action was initiated for vesting this land in the State of West Bengal and a note sheet was prepared by the Secretary-in-Charge and was placed before the Minister concerned but in pursuance of that no order was passed. We do not propose to express any opinion on the propriety of the thing as the matter is already pending before the learned Single Judge and the parties will have opportunity to agitate the matter with regard to this communication. However, it only shows lack of co-ordination. Be that as it may since the order itself has outlived its utility and it has ceased to be operative, therefore no purpose will be served in setting aside that order. However, we dispose of this appeal as well as the stay petition with a direction that as the stay order has already outlived its utility, therefore, it ceased to have any effect as such we do not propose to interfere with this order as the appeal and the stay application has become infructuous. 5. Now coming to the public interest litigation filed by the petitioners, since the matter is being debated between the petitioners and the Government with regard to these premises and the petitioners has already been impleaded as a party in the petition before the learned Single Judge, therefore, we do not propose to interfere in this public interest litigation and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it has been contended before us by Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition filed by Granito Ceramics Limited that Ajoy Mukherjee has no locus standi to file the public interest litigation and he is only bait for someone else. Be that as it may we, as already noted above, do not propose to interfere in the public interest litigation as the matter is already pending before the learned Single Judge because interference in this public interest litigation will amount causing serious prejudice to the rights of the parties. Hence, we do not find any merit in the public interest litigation and the same is dismissed. Hence, we do not find any merit in the public interest litigation and the same is dismissed. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal as well as the stay application filed by Granito Ceramics Limited have become infructuous and the same is dismissed and the public interest litigation filed by Ajoy Mukherjee and others is also dismissed. No order as to costs.