SAILESH KOTHARI Vs. PROSENJIT SARDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

(2.) Since the appeal has been preferred from the impugned order by a third party, the appellant has sought for leave to appeal, which is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(3.) The appellant before this Court claims to be prejudicially affected by the order impugned in this appeal dated 5th October, 2020 in WPA 7059 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2020. The Hon'ble Single Bench which passed the order dated 5th October, 2020 at the instance of the writ petitioner/the respondent no.1 to this appeal and the stay application as well as in the presence of the Municipality and the State Authorities arrayed as respondents to this writ petition, inter alia, directed both the Municipal Corporation and the Police Authority to conjointly take action to restrain the alleged illegal construction being carried out at the behest of the present appellant in Ward No. 27, where the present respondent no.1/the writ petitioner is a Councillor of the Municipality.