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 stay as also the writ petition.
(2.) The instant appeal arises out of an order dated 20th November, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 16459 (W) of 2018 (Sri Jeevan lal Agarwal & Anr. vs. Konnagar Municipality & Ors.). By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to refuse recalling or modifying the order dated 11th September, 2018. By the order dated 11th September, 2018, the writ petition was directed to be listed on 24th September, 2018, upon hearing the parties.
(3.) The issue before the learned Single Judge as sought to be raised by the writ petitioners (being the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the present appeal) was in respect of a hoarding which was set up at a locale within the jurisdiction of the concerned Municipality, namely, Konnagar Municipality. According to the writ petitioners, the hoarding was set up without due permission from the concerned Municipality. The learned Single Judge took note of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants herein (being the private respondent nos.2 to 6 in the writ proceedings). It was submitted on their behalf that the hoarding was set up without due permission from the Municipality and they would dismantle such hoarding on their own for which they sought for time. When the private respondents subsequently moved the learned Single Judge for recalling and/or modifying the order dated 11th September, 2018, the learned Single Judge proceeded to pass the following order on 20th November, 2018:- "Re: CAN No.7672 of 2018 This is an application seeking recalling of the order dated September 11, 2018 passed by the Court. It is the contention of the applicants that, they did not give the instructions as recorded in such order as the contention on behalf of the applicants. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in the application as also in the affidavitin-reply. An affidavit was called from the erstwhile Advocate-on-record of the applicants. In such affidavit, the erstwhile Advocate-on-record of the applicants stated that, the respondent nos.2 and 4 were present in Court on September 11, 2018. The submissions made on behalf of the applicants then were at the instructions of the applicants and that, the respondent nos.2 and 4 were present in Court to give such instructions. The presence of the respondent nos.2 and 4 in Court on September 11, 2018 is not disputed in the affidavit-in-reply. It is the contention of such applicants that, there was no occasion to give such instructions. With respect, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the erstwhile Advocate-on-record. There is nothing on record to suggest that, the erstwhile Advocateon-record misunderstood the instructions or his submissions were contrary to the instructions given. In such circumstances, I find no reason to recall or modify the order dated September 11, 2018. CAN No.7672 of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs.";