Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 169 (CAL)

Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal

2019-02-04

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for appropriate order. 2. Let the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today on behalf of the concerned authority, namely, Asansol Municipal Corporation be taken on record. 3. Perusing the inspection report, it appears that the temporary shed - which is the subject matter of controversy - is within the premises of Tanuja Chattaraj (Mondal), being the respondent no.6, herein. The report further states that the building of the appellant/writ petitioner is situated at the back of Tanuja Chattaraj's (Mondal) building. Relevant part of the inspection report is required to be reproduced here-in-below:- "The Temporary Shed is within the premises of Tanuja Chattaraj (Mondal). The Temporary Shed as it appears to us is made of corrugated sheet. The length of the shed is approximately 13'9'' and Breadth is 4'6''. The shed is upon the rear set back of the building of Tanuja Chattraj (Mondal). The height of the Temporary shed is approximately 7'6'' from floor level. The building of Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee is situated back side of Tanuja Chattaraj (Mondal)'s building. The height of the shed exceeds 1'11'' from the top level of boundary wall of Monotosh Kumar Chatterjee." 4. Considering the report as submitted by Asansol Municipal Corporation, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the impugned judgment and order dated 6th June, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 6748 (W) of 2018 requires no intervention in an Intra Court Mandamus Appeal, since on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 5. In such circumstances, the appeal and the application for appropriate order are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. 6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties. Arindam Mukherjee, J. - I agree.