S.N.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) This appeal directed against the order dated 29-9-1997 passed by a single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 9960(W)/97 projects a disturbing picture where in an ordinary private dispute between the landlord and tenant, the statutory public authority joined hands with one side in deliberate defiance of the Court's order and in brazen violation of the statutory rules thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to other.
(2.) Sri Haripada Khalsa, the writ petitioner/respondent was a tenant under Sri Priya Brata Maity, the appellant, in the disputed premises at Manickchak, Contai, Dist., Midnapore since February, 1975 at a rental of Rs. 150/- per month. Following a dispute between the parties regarding repair works of the tenanted portion of the building and alleged threat of eviction by the son of the landlord, the tenant filed a T.S. No. 134 of 1996 in the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division at Contai against the landlord and obtained an order for interim injunction on 14-8-1996 restraining the landlord from evicting the tenant from the suit premises till the disposal of the petition for temporary injunction. Sensing that the landlord had been trying to evict him by demolishing the premises through Municipality the respondent-tenant informed the Chairman, Contai Municipality of the order of injunction and by his letter dated 14-3-1997 sent by Regd. Post with A/D which was received by the Chairman. (Annexure 'B' of the affidavit of the petition for appr.. relief). The tenant also moved a writ petition (W.P. No. 9960(W)/97) against the Contai Municipality and its Chairman impleading the landlord for restraining the respondents from demolishing the premises without due process of law. The learned trial Judge disposed of the writ petition ex parte by his order dated 29-9-1997 directing the Municipal authority not to take steps for demolition of the disputed premises without due process of law. The order was communicated to the respondents including the Contai Municipality (Annexure 'A' to the stay petition dated. .........) by the learned Advocate for the petitioner by his letter dated 29-7-1997. On 11-9-1997 respondent No. 5 preferred the instant appeal against that order dated 29-7-1997 and moved the stay petition before the Division Bench of this Court contending, Inter alia, in para 10 thereof :-- That in the meanwhile the writ petition/ opposite filed a suit being Title Suit No. 134/ 96 before the learned Court below'against the appellant for declaration of tenancy right. Accordingly the application for Injunction in connection with the said suit was also filed. But still now no injunction has been granted on the basis of the said application and the same has been fixed on 12-12-1997." The Division Bench passed an order dated 1-6-1998 ex parte In the following terms :-- "After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the appeal and the application are disposed of by directing the authority of the Contai Municipality to proceed with the demolition, if any, in respect of the premises-in-question after taking into consideration of the report submitted by Mr. D.K. Chowan, S.A.E. Contai Municipality and after complying with the statutory provisions and after giving notice and opportunity to the landlord and tenant and passed order in the matter in accordance with law." On the tenant-respondent's petition explaining the absence of learned counsel due to 'Rail Track Obstruction' the Division Bench was pleased to recall the order dated 1-6-1998 by its order dated 6-6-1998. On 4-8-1998 the respondent-tenant filed a petition before this Bench praying for appropriate relief disclosing subsequent developments since 6-6-1998, "In pursuance to the direction a notice was served on 10th June, 1998 upon the petitioners and directed him to appear at 6 p.m. on 11th June, 1998 in the office of Contai Municipality. In obedience to the notice the petitioner appeared and filed an application addressed to the Chairman, Contai Municipality and prayed for contending inter alia that an application addressed to the Chairman, Contai Municipality and prayed for contending inter alia that an application for recalling the order dated 1st June, 1998 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the said copy was served upon the learned Advocate Mr. Parimal Kumar Das who is appearing on behalf of Contai Municipality. A copy of the said notice and also the application are filed herewith and marked as Annexure 'C'." It is further alleged that on 14-6-1998 and 15-6-1998, the'Municipal Authorities demolished a portion of the premises without complying with the provision Under Section 223 of the W.B. Municipal Act.
(3.) On 23-3-1999 we ordered that keeping in view of the fact that the appeal was once heard and disposed, but the said order was subsequently recalled, no question of grant of any stay arises, at this stage.;