( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 and 5 are monthly tenants under the petitioner in respect of a property situate at 103/1, Basanta Lal Saha Road, P. S. Behala, Kolkata-700 073 (hereafter the said premises ). Respondent No. 4 is the holder of a licence, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereafter the said Rules), authorised to manufacture for sale Drugs specified in Schedule-C and C (1) (excluding those specified in Schedule-X ). The licence, on renewal by the Licensing Authority, is valid till 26. 12. 2006.

( 2 ) ALLEGING that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had been carrying on unauthorised construction in the said premises, the petitioner had approached the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation)with the prayer to initiate appropriate action against them. The Corporation not having acted on the basis of the petitioner's prayer, Writ Petition No. 16602 (W)/05 had been instituted by the petitioner in this Court. By order dated 23. 11. 2005, the writ petition stood disposed of with a direction upon the Corporation to initiate a proceeding under Section 400 of the Kolkata municipal Corporation Act and to conclude such proceeding after hearing the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 (respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein) within the time-frame fixed therein. Till such time determination was made by the Corporation in terms of the said order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to such construction.

( 3 ) IN compliance with the aforesaid order, a proceeding was initiated by the Corporation under the appropriate law which culminated in an order dated 3. 3. 06 being passed by the Special Officer (Building) of the corporation, whereby the respondents 4 and 5 were found responsible for raising unauthorised construction in the said premises and, accordingly, were directed to demolish the same at their own costs and risk within 15 days from date of communication of the order.

( 4 ) HAVING come to learn from the office of the Drug Controller, respondent No. 2 herein, that steps were being taken to issue Schedule-M certificate in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of the said premises, the petitioner appears to have lodged a series of representations calling upon the respondent No. 2 not to issue Schedule-M certificate in favour of the respondent No. 4 in view of the fact that unauthorised construction has been raised by it in the said premises.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 2 did not respond. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 2 in considering the representations lodged by him, the petitioner has approached this Court once again with the present petition, now praying for mandamus on the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner, objecting to issuance of Schedule-M certificate in respect of the said premises in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Additionally, a mandamus has been prayed for on the respondent No. 2 to forthwith cancel/ rescind/withdraw the decision taken, if at all, for issuance of a Schedule-M certificate.

( 6 ) MR. Bose, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. He has submitted that no legal right of the petitioner having been infringed by any action of the respondents, he is not entitled to maintain this writ petition and the same ought to be dismissed. He further submits that the writ petition has been filed with the intention of evicting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from the said premises in an indirect manner, without instituting a suit for eviction before the competent Civil Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following decisions: -

(i) AIR 1964 SC 685, State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev; (ii) 2006 (4) CHN 689, Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. State of west Bengal: (iii) 2006 (2) CLJ 637, Surajdeo Singh v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta: and (iv) 78 CWN 183, Corporation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document