JUDGMENT 1. NONE appears on behalf of the appellant when the matter is called. 2. THE learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that she mentioned the matter and wanted to give notice to the learned Advocate for the appellant, but he refused to accept such notice. As a last chance, let the matter appear on next Monday (8.2.2010). If none appears on behalf of the appellant on that day, the matter will be dismissed for default. 3. LET this order be communicated to the learned Advocate for the appellant. M.A.T. No. 556 of 2009 Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Prasenjit Mandal Dibyendu Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal and Ors February 10, 2010 Moloy Roy for the appellant; Bikash Kr. Chattopadhyay, Ramendra Nath Biswas for the respondent No. 3; Narayan Chandra Mondal, Anita Khattri for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In Re : C A.N. No. 8251 of 2009 4. AFTER hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the explanation given in this application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. We, therefore, condone the delay of four days preferring the appeal. 5. THE application, being CAN 8251 of 2009, is thus, allowed. In Re : C A.N. No. S463 of 2009 6. INSTEAD of disposal of the application for stay, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list. This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court thereby dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant in which the appellant had challenged the order dated 24th May, 2007 passed by the Khardah Municipality, thereby asking the appellant to demolish the poultry farm being run in the premises of the appellant without taking any trade licence, in accordance with law. 7. IT appears from the record that there is no dispute that without taking any trade licence, the appellant is running the said poultry farm. 7. IT appears from the record that there is no dispute that without taking any trade licence, the appellant is running the said poultry farm. In view of such fact, in the past, notice was given to the appellant for stopping that business and subsequently, the business not having been stopped, there was a meeting with the representative of the writ petitioner and ultimately six months' time was granted for removal of the said poultry farm. 8. ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, he has already applied for the trade licence on 3rd August, 2006 but the Municipality has not yet disposed of such application. It was, however, pointed out that the said application was not supported by "No Objection" from the Pollution Control Board. Learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly held that merely because the writ petitioner had made an application for trade licence, such fact will not enable the writ petitioner to carry on with the illegal business when admittedly no licence has been granted in his favour. 9. WE, therefore, find that the learned Trial Judge, in the facts of the present case, rightly upheld the order of demolition, passed by the Municipality. 10. WE, however, direct the Municipality to dispose of the application for trade licence, if any filed by the writ petitioner, within a fortnight from today. The Municipality, instead of demolishing any structure, will be entitled to take all available measure for stopping the said business, if the building is sanctioned by the Municipality. With the above observation, this mandamus appeal is disposed of. 11. IN view of disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application, being C.A.N. No. 5463 of 2009, has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. 12. URGENT xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the appellant within one week form the date of making of such application upon compliance of all requisite formalities.