Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 15391 of 2025 Somsubhra Chakrabarti Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Subhas Chandra Atha For the State : Mr. Sovan Mukherjee Ms. Sneha Chatterjee For the Municipality : Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee Ms. Indumouli Banerje For the respondent no.9 : Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty Mr. Amal Kumar Saha Mr. Iresh Paul Heard on : 01.07.2026 & 08.07.2026 Judgment on : 08.07.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Challenging cancellation of the certificate of trade licence issued under the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) by the Bishnupur Municipality, Bankura, on the ground that no objection certificate from the holding owner has not been taken, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2 WPA 15391 of 2025 2. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder with the private respondent no.9, whereunder the private respondent had inducted the petitioner as a monthly tenant in respect of plot no.10005, J.L No.101, Khatian No. 1517/1, holding no.408/A, having area of about 193 sq. ft., ward no. 15 under Bishnupur Municipality, District- Bankura. The rent receipt dated 5th April, 2025 for the month of November 2024 has also been disclosed. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been paying commercial rates and taxes. The petitioner claims, he had applied for obtaining a licence to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute drugs by retail before the concerned authority of Drugs Control, Bankura, Government of West Bengal. In furtherance to the above, the Assistant Director (LA) Drugs Control, Bankura on 4th May, 2016 had issued a licence in favour of the petitioner‟s business run under the name and style of „Ma Ambika Pharmacy‟. The petitioner has been running the said business from holding no. 408/A, ward no.15 under Bishnupur Municipality. 4. The petitioner would contend that for the purpose of carrying on business and trade as is required, the petitioner had obtained requisite trade licence. According to the petitioner the trade licence issued in favour of the petitioner by the municipality is valid till 12th March, 2030. The petitioner contends that the municipal authority all on a sudden cancelled the said licence issued to the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that no objection certificate from the holding owner had not been taken. 3 WPA 15391 of 2025 Challenging the aforesaid cancellation, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Though the matter was filed on 9th July, 2025, this matter could ultimately be taken up on 1st July, 2026. Incidentally, on the aforesaid date neither the private respondent nor the municipality appeared and accordingly this Court in the peculiar facts could not take up the matter for hearing and while adjourning the hearing, directed the petitioner to communicate the order of adjournment to the non-appearing respondents. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, both the municipality and the private respondent are present in Court today. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner in furtherance to the direction dated 1st July, 2026 is also taken on record. 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the municipality has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 13th September, 2021, issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of West Bengal, which authorizes the Urban Local Bodies to cancel the certificate of enlistment immediately in case of detection of any fraud, mala fide data entry, uploading of fake documents etc. Accordingly, he submits that the municipality having detected that the no objection certificate by the land owner had not been disclosed, forthwith rejected the certificate of enlistment. He has also tried to improve the grounds for cancellation by making diverse submissions, however, such 4 WPA 15391 of 2025 submissions do not find place in the order impugned and as such this Court does not place reliance on such submissions. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the private respondent. He has tried to question the previous certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner. In my view, there is no scope for this Court to enter into such dispute especially when the order dated 19th March, 2025 has been passed cancelling the certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, the question that falls for consideration is whether there is any requirement in law for the petitioner to obtain any no objection from the holding owner for the purpose of the petitioner obtaining a trade licence. Having regard to the aforesaid it is relevant to take into consideration the scope of Section 118 of the said Act which authorizes the municipality to issue certificate of enlistment. To morefully appreciate the same, Section 118 of the said Act is extracted hereinbelow: “118. Certificate for enlistment of profession, trade and callings. (1) Every persons engaged or intending to be engaged in any profession, trade or calling, as specified in Schedule I, and as may be detailed to the guidelines issued by the State Government for the purpose, in any municipal area either by himself or by an agent or representative, shall obtain a Permanent Certificate of Enlistment or Provisional Certificate of Enlistment, as the case may be as per modalities specified in sub-section (2), or get the Permanent Certificate of Enlistment renewed, on or before the expiry of the validity period thereof, from the Executive Officer of the Municipality or, in his absence, from the officer authorized to function as the Executive 5 WPA 15391 of 2025 Officer, upon presentation of an application together with such application fee, as specified in the guideline, at such rates, not exceeding rupees one thousand and five hundred per annum, and also the documents as may be determined by the State Government by issuance of guidelines from time to time. Application form for the purpose shall be available either from the Municipal office on payment of such fee as may be determined by the Municipality or through the web portal: Provided that the Provisional Certificate of Enlistment shall not be renewable and on or before completion of the validity period of Provisional Certificate of Enlistment, the same has to be converted into Permanent Certificate of Enlistment; Provided further that such enlistment or renewal thereof shall not absolve such person from any liability to take out any license under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the application for enlistment of profession, trade and calling may also be submitted through web portals, as may be determined by the State Government along with the manner of submission of such applications in the guidelines mentioned in sub-section (1). In the case of applications under this sub-section, where any or all necessary statutory clearance remain pending, Provisional of Enlistment be issued for a period of one year, and where all the statutory clearances are available, the Permanent Certificate of Enlistment be issued by the Municipality concerned within the time limit as may be determined by the guidelines under sub-section (1) on receipt of requisite fees. The recipient of the Provisional Certificate of Enlistment shall obtain all statutory clearances based or this Provisional Certificate of Enlistment, and on or before the expiry of validity of the Provisional Certificate of Enlistment shall apply for Permanent Certificate of Enlistment, and shall receive the Permanent Certificate from the municipal office on payment of requisite fees as may be determine by the guidelines. The manner of issuance of Provisional and Permanent Certificate of Enlistment shall be such as may be determined by the State Government in the guidelines mentioned in sub-section (1). (3) Permanent Certificate of Enlistment under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) may be obtained for a maximum period of three years together and be renewed for a maximum period of three years together, subject to condition that the fee for enlistment for the entire period shall be deposited together at a time for which the certificate to be issued.” 10. Having considered the said provision, I find that the same also provides that for the purpose of issuance of provisional or permanent certificate of enlistment, guidelines of the State Government as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 118 is required to be followed. I, however, note that the selfsame issue had fell for consideration before the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this 6 WPA 15391 of 2025 Court in the case of Raghunathpur Municipality & Ors. v. Sabita Chowdhury & Anr., reported in 2019 SCC Online Cal 5947. In the said judgment, Their Lordships considered the provisions of the said Act, diverse authorities, in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment had concluded that the provisions of the said Act did not authorize the municipality to investigate into the question of title to the land possessed by the applicant. In paragraph 11, Their Lordships had recorded that unless, the statute imposes an obligation on the applicant to have a title, a municipality on its own cannot impose such obligation. Their Lordships further went on to add that in their opinion, insistence of the municipality that the writ petitioner must establish title prior to obtaining a certificate of enlistment is extraneous to the provisions of the Municipal Act, and such action ought to be eschewed. To morefully appreciate the aforesaid judgment, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: “6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether an applicant for a certificate of enlistment is bound to prove title to the land from where he/she intends to/carry on business. 7. For the purpose of a decision on the present appeal, we may take note of sections 118 and 119 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereafter the Municipal Act). Section 118 imposes on every person, engaged or intending to be engaged in any profession, trade or calling, as specified in Schedule-I, and as may be detailed in the guidelines issued by the State Government for the purpose, in any municipal area, obligation to obtain a permanent certificate of enlistment or provisional certificate of enlistment, as the case may be, as per modalities specified in sub-section (2) of section 118. Section 119 regulates the procedure to be followed by the executive officer or, in his absence, the officer authorised to function as the executive officer for issuance of certificate of enlistment, within thirty days of receipt of the application under section 118. 8. Pari materia provisions (section 199 and 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980) came up for consideration before the 7 WPA 15391 of 2025 coordinate Bench in Abdul Rashid (supra). The point involved in the appeal before the coordinate Bench was that a person was carrying on business of motor car repairing on a piece of land in respect whereof he had no title and certificate of enlistment had been issued in his favour, which was under challenge in a writ petition. Although the writ petition succeeded, the coordinate Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal by observing as follows: “As would appear from the relevant entries in Schedule IV, even if a person is carrying on the business without any place of business he would still be liable to be taxed under Serial no. 84 of Schedule IV, but if he is carrying on that business at a place, whether as an owner or tenant or otherwise, he would have been liable to pay higher taxes under Serial No. 8 or No. 44. A businessman, whether Aniketa, i.e., without a place, or Saniketa, i.e., with a place of business, is liable to be taxed under Section 199 and entitled to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980. Such certificate and payment of tax only entitle the certificate holder-cum-tax payer with a licence to carry on trade or business which may or may not have any relation to or connection with any place or site. ………………………………………………… We, with respect, are ready to share the anxiety expressed by the learned Judge for the nuisance, annoyance and other health hazards resulting from „the mushroom growth of motor-car repairing shops‟ and let, as desired by the learned judge, the Municipal Corporation and other authorities entrusted with the maintenance of public health, safety and order come down upon them with the long and heavy hands of law. but all that we say, in respectful disagreement with the learned trial judge and in respectful agreement with Chatterjee, J. in Venode Kumar Jalan, (1987) 1 Cal LT 333 (supra) is that the Corporation cannot refuse certificate of enlistment under S. 200 and payment of tax under S. 199 to one carrying on the business of motor-car repairing solely on the ground that he has no place of business or no title to his professed place of business.” 9. The aforesaid decision and the decisions reported in 1987 (2) CHN 219 : Vinod Kumar Jalan v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and 1994 (2) CLT HC 160 : U.S.G. Financial Services Pvt. (Ltd.) v. C.M.C., were considered in Lyeeque Ahmed Akhtar (supra), wherein the provision considered is the same under consideration before us. This is what the learned Judge observed: “In view of the aforesaid pronouncement in the abovenoted decisions, this Court has no other alternative but to hold that the Municipal Authority exceeded his jurisdiction by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of certificate of enlistment on the ground of non-production of the landlord's consent. Since it has already been held in the aforesaid pronouncements of this Court that the legality and validity of the right of the person applying for grant of certificate of enlistment cannot be considered by the Municipal Authority at the time of grant of certificate of 8 WPA 15391 of 2025 enlistment to the applicant, the impugned order cannot be maintained.” 10. We share the views expressed in all the decisions referred to above.” 11. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the same issue in the case of Subir Bhowmick v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2018 SCC Online Cal 7639. In such case, His Lordship after considering the scope of enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of both the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 including its amended provisions and the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 and diverse authorities including the judgment in the case of Indu Bhushan Bhattacharya v. Swaroop Kumar Shah delivered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in AST 216 of 2012 on 4th October, 2012, had noted that the municipality should limit this enquiry with regard to the requirement of the statutory provisions and nothing else, and despite a provision having been made under the prescribed form for production of landlord‟s consent, the municipal authorities cannot refuse to grant certificate of enlistment to the petitioner who intends to be engaged in a trade within the municipal area for non-production of such landlord‟s consent letter. In other words, the Court directed the enquiry to be confined strictly to the provisions of the specific section of the statute. Similar view has been taken by this Court in a judgment delivered in the case of Bhagwatdas Jaiswal v. Kolkata 9 WPA 15391 of 2025 Municipal Corporation & Ors., having neutral citation 2026:CHC-OS 280. 12. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the decision of the municipality to cancel the certificate of enlistment without even issuing a show cause appears to be high handed. In any event, the municipality could not have set aside the certificate of enlistment on the ground of non-production of holding owner‟s consent. Having regard thereto, the order dated 19th March, 2025 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. All consequences shall follow. 13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)