SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI,J. - (1.) Upon leave being given, the matter is treated as on the day's list and is being taken up for hearing. In view of the urgency mentioned by the appellants we have decided to take up the matter even without service of notice upon the respondents.
(2.) Having heard Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Corporation and after going through the records of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation as handed over to us by Mr. Banerjee, it appears that the appellants have not been able to make out any case whatsoever that calls for interference of the order passed by the learned single Judge. We were initially given to understand that after allotment of the premises to the writ petitioner by the Corporation, it was detected that the same had already been allotted to some other party from before which necessitated revoking of the permission granted to the writ petitioner. After going through the records, we find that the facts are just the reverse. On the other hand, the authorities started preparing an intra?departmental note facilitating the issue of such letter of revocation of the permission earlier granted.
(3.) In such view of the matter, there is no question of interfering with the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed.;