Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 856 (CAL)

Sandip Samanta v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation

2018-11-28

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2018
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. Re: CAN 8076 of 2018 Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/appellant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 8076 of 2018, is accordingly allowed. MAT 1168 of 2018 with CAN 8080 of 2018 2. 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. 3. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 7th June, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 15378 (W) of 2015 (Shri Sandip Samanta vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.). 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge chose not to intervene and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition, being W. P. 15378 (W) of 2015. 5. The instant appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 6. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is reproduced in its entirety here in below: - “An order of assessment is under challenge in the present writ petition. The Corporation authorities are represented. The petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy, if at all, with regard to the order of assessment. Learned Advocate for the Corporation draws the attention of the court to the order of assessment and submits that, the same was passed in presence of the petitioner. Upon perusing the orders passed in the assessment proceedings dated May 30, 2013 and June 27, 2013, I find that the petitioner was represented and the petitioner is aware of the order of assessment. In such circumstances, I find no reason to intervene in the present writ petition. W.P. 15378 (W) of 2015 is dismissed without any order as to costs.” 7. On a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, as reproduced hereinabove, we do not notice any palpable infirmity or perversity which would warrant interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Its correctness, as such, cannot be doubted or assailed before this Court of Appeal. 8. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 9. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. Its correctness, as such, cannot be doubted or assailed before this Court of Appeal. 8. For reasons stated above, the appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.