7 23.09.2026 sb Ct.3. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 23017 of 2026 Ratan Saha Versus The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Dibyayan Banerji Mr. Abhrajit Roy Chowdhurty … For the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey … For Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Mr. Souvik Nandy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini … For the State. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Though, an order was passed in the matter yesterday, however, to seek clarification, the matter has been posted under the heading “To Be Mentioned”. Accordingly, the unsigned order dated 22nd September, 2026, is recalled and the matter is heard afresh. 3. Challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2026, passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, whereby the petitioner’s business run in the name and style of Ajanta Cinema Hall has been directed to be closed primarily on the ground of violation of Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the instant writ petition has been filed. 2 WPA 23017 of 2026 4. Mr. Banerji, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is continuing with the business run under the name and style of Ajanta Cinema Hall from premises no. 24, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700034. According to Mr. Banerji, the above order was not preceded by any show cause. In this context, he has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 416(5) proviso of the said Act. It is submitted that the above order cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside. 5. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appears for the State. 6. According to Mr. Chaturvedi, the order dated 22nd August, 2026 was not issued without any enquiry. He would submit that in the instant case, an inspection was carried out by the Joutha Committee constituted under the office order no. 13 of 2026-27 dated 11th June, 2026. According to him, the inspection carried out by the Joutha Committee revealed that the petitioner has been carrying on business from a residential building without seeking conversion thereof in accordance with Section 416 of the said Act. While responding to a query from the Court, he would, however, acknowledge the fact that the petitioner’s business is not a bar-cum-restaurant and, as such, the last line of the order which records that the petitioner is running bar-cum-restaurant without any fire licence, may not be applicable insofar as the petitioner is concerned. He would, however, submit that if the 3 WPA 23017 of 2026 petitioner is in a position to comply with the SOP issued vide office order no. 43/26-27 dated 5th September, 2026, the municipal authorities would revisit the order. 7. Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner has been running the business without valid fire licence. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, the impugned order contemplates that the petitioner has been carrying on business from a building in violation of Section 416 of the said Act, as no appropriate permission has been obtained. In the instant case, though it is recorded in the order that the cinema hall is run along with bar-cum- restaurant, the learned advocate for the municipality had acknowledged the fact that the business is limited to cinema hall and not that of bar-cum-restaurant. 9. In the peculiar facts, I find that for the municipality to proceed for violation of Section 416 of the said Act, a notice under Section 416(5) proviso ought to have been served. The same has not been done. This apart, though Mr. Nandy, learned senior advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the petitioner has no valid fire licence, I find that the same was not notified to the petitioner at least the order does not identify the same. In fact, the inspection report of Joutha Committee which is relied on by the municipality has also not been disclosed to the petitioner for the petitioner to consider the same. The order dated 22nd August, 2026 4 WPA 23017 of 2026 appears to have been issued in colourable exercise of power. The order is also violative of the principles of natural justice and in fair play. 10. In the peculiar facts, I am of the view that the order for closure which has been issued in colourable exercise of power cannot be sustained, the same is accordingly set aside, leaving it open to the appropriate authorities to proceed in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)