HIMALAYA OPTICO Vs. STATE OF WEST BANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kishore Datta appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Pranab Datta, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent-authorities. The appellants/petitioners filed the writ application before the Single Judge questioning a notice issued by the respondent authorities regarding demolition of part of the premises which was not occupied by the petitioner at 300, B.B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata. The petitioners made a prayer that notice is illegal. The writ petition has been dismissed on merits by the Single Judge vide order dated 11th April, 2011. It is observed by the Single Judge that building has already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of housing Police Department. The petitioner is not being dispossessed from the premises and the first floor which has become dilapidated was required to be dismantled pursuant to the notice issued for demolition. The petitioners apprehended that if the demolition order is allowed to carry on there will be seepage of water and the part of the premises which is in its possession will become uninhabitable.

(2.) After the disposal of the writ petition, a review application has been preferred being G.A. No. 3393 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the Single Judge on 11th January 2012 holding that the review application is hopelessly barred by delay and there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in filing the application seeking review. Even otherwise there is no ground for review of the order in question.

(3.) As against the order rejecting the review application, this appeal has been preferred. Objection has been raised by Sri Pranab Datta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents saying that the intra-Court appeal cannot be said to be maintainable as against the order passed rejecting the review application. Petitioners/appellants have not questioned the main order dismissing the writ application on 11th April, 2011 passed in W.P. No. 221 of 2011.