JUDGMENT : 1. The defects in the cause title are directed to be removed by the learned advocate-on-record of the appellants. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and disposed of along with the connected application, being CAN 8966 of 2016, as follows:- 2. The appellants filed the writ petition, being WP 5527 (W) of 2016, before the learned Single Judge essentially challenging an order dated 20th February, 2016, passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (C), Borough-III, Building Department, Kolkata Municipal Corporation. 3. The genesis of the said order passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer dated 20th February, 2016, appears to be an order passed by the writ Court on 4th December, 2014 (wrongly stated as 4th December, 2015 in the impugned judgment and order) in an earlier writ petition which was moved by the private respondent nos.7 and 8 herein. That writ petition was disposed of by the Court directing the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to consider and dispose of the representation made by the said respondents. 4. While passing the order impugned dated 5th July, 2016, the learned Single Judge - for reasons stated therein - decided not to interfere with the order dated 20th February, 2016, passed by the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. After dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, however, proceeded to issue a mandatory direction upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation to proceed with the demolition of the entire unauthorised construction as directed in the order dated 20th February, 2016, passed by the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, in accordance with law, as early as possible. 5. It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the appellants that after the writ petition of his clients was dismissed, the learned Single Judge ought not to have proceeded further to issue a suo motu mandatory direction upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation, since neither Kolkata Municipal Corporation nor the private respondents could have at all prayed for such reliefs in the writ petition filed by his clients before the learned Single Judge. 6. 6. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that there is no palpable infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 5th July, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge, since it merely affirms the order passed by the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 20th February, 2016. 7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the directions given by the learned Single Judge upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation ought not to be interfered with since the Court has passed such directions in affirmation of the order of the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 20th February, 2016. 8. After considering the respective submission made on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order dated 5th July, 2016, this Court is of the view that so far as the decision of the learned Single Judge with regard to non-interference with the order of the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 20th February, 2016, is concerned, the same does not warrant any interference. However, it is noticed that while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has proceeded further to issue a mandatory direction upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation to proceed with demolition of the entire unauthorised construction, as directed in the order of the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation dated 20th February, 2016. Although, the learned Single Judge has qualified such a mandatory direction with the observation to the effect that the same should be done in accordance with law as early as possible, this Court is of the view that such a mandatory direction - consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition - was wholly unwarranted. The reason is, the writ petitioner had approached the learned Single Judge praying for a mandatory direction in respect of the order dated 20th February, 2016, passed by the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The Court, in such circumstances, ordinarily, has two options before it - either to allow the writ petition or to dismiss it. The learned Single Judge chose the latter. The Court, in such circumstances, ordinarily, has two options before it - either to allow the writ petition or to dismiss it. The learned Single Judge chose the latter. After proceeding to dismiss the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, however, ought not to have issued a mandatory direction upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation since such a direction is in the nature of a suo motu order, which could not have been prayed for either by Kolkata Municipal Corporation or by the private respondents. Even if they would have made such a prayer, the learned Single Judge could not have possibly granted the same in the writ petition filed by Ganges Rubber Industries Private Limited and others, being the appellants herein, which stood dismissed. It would have been a different case altogether had Kolkata Municipal Corporation or the private respondents initiated a separate proceeding praying for issuance of mandatory directions for enforcement of the order dated 20th February, 2016, against Ganges Rubber Industries Private Limited and others. The order dated 20th February, 2016, not having being interfered with, as such, was not required to be separately directed to be enforced, upon issuance a suo motu mandatory direction by the learned Single Judge. 9. We, therefore, set aside only that part of the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent where a mandatory direction was issued upon Kolkata Municipal Corporation to proceed with demolition. 10. We, however, make it clear that we are not interfering with the rest of the judgment and order dated 5th July, 2016 and as a consequence, do not make any comment or observation with regard to the order dated 20th February, 2016, passed by the concerned authority of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Parties are always at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.