29.09.2026 sayandeep Sl. No. 57 Ct. No. 03 WPA 26379 of 2026 Srikrishna Das Vs. KMC & ors. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arnab Sardar Mr. souradeep Banerjee Mr. Andolan Sarkar Mr. Santosh Singh …. for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Sr. adv. Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey ….. for the KMC Mr. Tapas Kr. Chatterjee Mr. Sailen Naskar ……For the State 1. The above writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 7th September, 2026 whereby the petitioner’s business run under the name and style of Srideep Guest House from premises No. 207 Shanti Pally has been directed to be closed and certificate of enlistment suspended . 2. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the instant writ petition would submit that the petitioner carried on business of Guest House from Block No. BE, Plot No. 1, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata 700107 being 207 Shanti Pally (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”). According to the petitioner, the petitioner has all requisite license for carrying on the business operations. He has also drawn attention of this WPA 26379 of 2026 2 Court to the certificate of enlistment issued by the municipal authorities and would submit that the certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner no.1 is valid till the financial year 2026-27. It also is the petitioner’s case that although, an inspection was carried out by the members of the Joutha Committee in terms of the office order No. 33 dated 19th August, 2026, the report thereof was not supplied to the petitioner. 3. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, on 7th September, 2026, the above notice was issued complaining violation of Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the petitioner carrying on business operations of a Guest House from a residential/non-residential G+III storied building without requisite permission. According to such notice, the business was also being conducted from the said premises without obtaining appropriate certificate of enlistment from the license department. Mr. Chowdhury would submit that the above would demonstrate complete non-application of mind on the part of the municipal Commissioner. 4. Independent of the above, he has also by drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 7th September, 2026 would submit that a copy whereof which has been enclosed to the petition does not bear the original signature of the municipal WPA 26379 of 2026 3 Commissioner. A copy of the original notice has in fact been served on the petitioner by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Building Department/Borough XII, KMC. The aforesaid notice thus, appear to be mechanically issued. According to him, the municipal authorities without affording the petitioner with any opportunity of hearing has issued the notice of closure which itself is bad in law and should be set aside. 5. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate appears for the KMC. He would submit that the aforesaid notice of closure was preceded by an inspection/enquiry carried out by the municipal authorities. Since in course of such inspections/enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner was carrying on business in violation of the provisions contained in Section 416 of the said Act, the above notice of closure has been issued. In response to a query of this Court he would, however, confirm the fact that the aforesaid notice has in fact been issued by the Municipal Commissioner though the copy which had been made over to the petitioner, records the signature as ‘Sd/-’. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on records, it would transpire that the petitioner’s business has been close down for the petitioner having failed to comply with the provisions of Section 416 of the said Act. As per the above WPA 26379 of 2026 4 notice, the petitioner is also running the business of Guest House from the premises in question without taking appropriate permission from the municipal authorities. 7. On this score, I find that the provisions of Section 416 (5) proviso of the said Act makes it mandatory for the municipal authorities to issue a show-cause before proceeding to pass any order for infringement of the aforesaid Section. Admittedly, the same has not been done. Copy of the inspection report has also not been served on the petitioner. This apart, as pointed out by Mr. Chowdhury, the petitioner is holding a valid certificate of enlistment, and police licence. Having regard thereto, at this stage without deciding on the validity of the inspection report of the Joutha Committee, the above notice which directs closure of the petitioner’s business and the suspension of the petitioner’s certificate of enlistment, in my view, cannot be sustained as having been issued in colourable exercise of power, and the same is accordingly set aside, leaving it open to the municipal authorities to take steps as may be advised in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)