Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satyanarayan Khaitan vs The Kolkata Municipal ... on 2 August, 2023
02.08.2023
Item No.01
Court No.6.
S. De
M.A.T. 564 of 2022
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2022
Satyanarayan Khaitan.
Vs.
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury,
Mr. Rahul Karmakar,
Mr. A.P. Agarwala,
...for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee,
Ms. Soni Ojha,
Ms. S. Nandy,
Mr. Soumajit Majumder,
...for the private respondent nos. 4 & 5.
Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh,
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee,
...for the K.M.C.
The short issue involved in this appeal is
whether the prior permission of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation was required to be taken by the appellant
for installation of a lift which the appellant says is a
home lift but which is disputed by the respondent
no.4, at the appellant's home.
It appears that the lift has been partly installed.
It is not yet in operation.
It further appears that the respondent no.4 and
another person approached a learned Single Judge of
our Court in the writ jurisdiction by filing WPA 15519
of 2022 challenging a communication from the Chief
Electrical Inspector to the present appellant to the
effect that no permission is required for installing a lift
of the kind that the appellant is in the process of
installing, under West Bengal Lifts, Escalators and
Travelators Act, 2019.
By a judgment and order dated May 8, 2023, a
learned Single Judge of our Court held as follows :-
"Hence, WPA No.15519 of 2022 is
allowed, thereby setting aside and
quashing the impugned
communication bearing no.SS/397
dated February 22, 2022 made by the
Joint Electrical Inspector and Member
Secretary (Lifts), Government of West
Bengal. Hence, the erection and
operation of the lift-in-question is
patently unlawful and unauthorized.
Thus, the petitioners are given liberty
to approach the appropriate forum
seeking demolition of the said lift and
ancillary constructions. Upon such
approach being made, the concerned
authorities shall proceed on such
complaint immediately."
The appellant says that an appeal has been
prepared for being filed against the aforesaid order.
As of date there is no challenge to the aforesaid
order of the learned Single Judge. So long as that
order holds fort, it may be a futile exercise on our part
to proceed with the hearing of this appeal.
We are told that in the proposed appeal the
appellant herein proposes to file a stay application
against the learned Single Judge's order passed in
WPA 15519 of 2022. Let the appellant apprise us
about the fate of the stay application on the adjourned
date.
Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing
for the appellant herein says that what is challenged in
the present proceedings before us is not the subject
matter of the writ petition being WPA 15519 of 2022.
We have noted the same. However, we are still of the
view that we should await the result in the stay
application that the appellant proposes to file in the
proposed appeal against the order of the learned
Single Judge passed in WPA 15519 of 2022.
List the matter once again on August 17, 2023.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
