IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRITJURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO 457 of 2026 Murari Lal Murarka Versus Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Samanta, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv. For the KMC : Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Ld. AAG. Mr. Srijit Chakraborty, Adv. Judgment on : 24th September 2026. RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. : 1. Challenging the order dated 2nd September 2026 passed by the Municipal Commissioner whereby the business run by the petitioner under the name and style of M/s. Murari Lal Murarka has been directed to be closed for violation of sections 416 and 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), the instant writ petition has been filed. WPO/457/2026 2 2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been carrying on business of guest house from premises no.5C, Earl Street, P.O. Kalighat, P.S. Bullygunge, Kolkata – 700026. According to him, the premises in question is a G+4 storeyed building out of which the 1st and the 2nd floors have been permitted to be used for the paying guests. According to Mr. Banerjee, the petitioner has duly obtained a certificate of enlistment and has been paying requisite charges regarding removal of solid waste for the said premises. Incidentally, the respondents all of a sudden had passed the order dated 2nd September 2026 and had shut down the petitioner's business. According to him, the above order has been issued in violation of the provisions of 416(5) proviso, of the said Act. In the peculiar facts, he seeks interference. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General appears for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He would submit that the above order was passed on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Jautho Committee constituted under office order no.13 of 2026-27 dated 11th June 2026. According to him, the inspection carried out by the Jautho Committee revealed that the petitioner has been carrying on business of guest house and are undertaking commercial activities without seeking appropriate permission under Section 416 of the said Act. While responding to a query from the Court, he would, WPO/457/2026 3 however, acknowledge the fact that no previous show cause was issued. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that ordinarily, to initiate a proceedings for non-compliance of Section 416 of the said Act, the municipality is under an obligation to provide an appropriate opportunity of hearing having regard to the provisions contained in sections 416(5) proviso, similarly for suspension of certificate of enlistment on account of violation of section 199 of the said Act, show cause notice must be provided, for the petitioner to respond. In the instant case, the same has not been done. 5. Be that as it may and without going into the legality and validity of the committee constituted by the respondents, at this stage, I am of the view that it shall be prudent for this Court to permit the petitioner to respond to the aforesaid order dated 2nd September 2026, by treating the same as a show cause. The municipality shall, however, be at liberty to file a supplementary show cause disclosing therein the documents it seeks to rely in addition to the enquiry report which has been made over to the petitioner’s advocate in Court today, within 14 days from date. 6. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a response within 15 days from date or, in the event any supplementary show cause is issued, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such show WPO/457/2026 4 cause. Once, a response is filed, if the municipality still contemplates passing of any adverse order, it shall decide the same by providing opportunity of hearing in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. 7. Since, the order dated 2nd September 2026 is treated to be a show cause, the direction for complete closure of the business issued by the respondents and the purported suspension of the certificate enlistment, shall stand quashed. 8. Although, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there are other shortcomings noted in the report under the other provisions of the relevant Acts, I am of the view that unless appropriate authority under the relevant Acts proceed, the petitioner cannot be called upon to respond to the same. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose/akg