10. 29.09.2026. Court No.03. (Pritam) WPA 28025 of 2026. Ashis Kumar Pal. -Vs.- Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty, Ms. Bratiti Pramanick, Mr. Aniruddha Das. .....for the petitioner. Mr. Tapas Kumar Chatterjee, Ld. AGP., Mr. Salien Naskar. ......for the State. Mr. Piyush Chaturbedi, Mr. Bratin Kr. Dey. ......for the KMC. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. Challenging the notice of closure dated 2nd September, 2026 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, whereby the petitioner’s business for boarding house (lodging only) run in the name and style of “M/s. Radha Apartment” from premises No.1/7, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata 700 038 has been directed to be closed, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the above notice of closure and would submit that the same is, in fact, an WPA 28025 of 2026 2 order, whereby the petitioner’s business premises has been directed to be closed on account of violation of Section 416 of the KMC Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). 4. Mr. Chakraborty would also draw the attention of this Court to the above notice and would submit that according to the municipality since the petitioner had not obtained any appropriate permission from the municipality for carrying on the business of the guest houses and assembly houses from the business premises, the aforesaid closure has been effected. He, however, submits that the aforesaid act and actions of the respondents are bad in law and cannot be sustained. According to him, the petitioner has a valid subsisting trade licence for the financial year 2026- 2027. The above closure notice was not proceeded by a show-cause. As such he seeks interference. 5. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appears for the municipality and would submit that the notice/order was not issued without a cause. According to him, an inspection was carried out by the member of the Joutha Committee in terms of the office order dated 19th August, 2026. According to him, in course of inspection, since the petitioner could not identify that he was having fire licence and a sanctioned building plan, the aforesaid order was issued. He would submit that a further opportunity to disclose all licenses to allow issuance of WPA 28025 of 2026 3 certificate of enlistment in furtherance to the closure notice dated 2nd September, 2026 vide communication dated 12th September, 2026 has already been issued. In the event, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid, appropriate order shall be passed. 6. The state is represented. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that the notice/order passed by the municipality is primarily on the ground of the petitioner not obtaining necessary permission under Section 416 of the KMC Act, 1980 and the petitioner not complying with the provisions of Section 199 of the said Act. In this context, it may be noted to take steps for infraction of Section 416 of the said Act, the municipality is duty- bound to afford the petitioner with a show-cause in terms of Section 416(5) proviso of the said Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the same has not been done. The above order on such ground appears to be bad. 8. Further, it would also appear from the disclosure made in the present petition that the petitioner has a valid trade licencei.e. certificate of enlistment issued in accordance with Section 199 of the said Act and the same is valid at least up to the end of 31st March, 2027. Admittedly, the petitioner has also not been served with enquiry/inspection report of the Joutha Committee. WPA 28025 of 2026 4 This apart, it may also be noted that Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner, has also disclosed the copy of the sanctioned building plan in respect of the business premises and would submit that the construction carried out at the same premises is in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. The copy of such plan is, however, not retained with the records and is returned to the petitioner as the obligation to scrutinise the same is with the municipality at the first instance. No such scrutiny in accordance with law has been taken place. This apart, it may also be noted that though the petitioner claims that the petitioner has obtained a valid trade licence, I am of the view that a trade licence is not sufficient for running business unless,other appropriate permissions, which are necessary, are obtained. 9. On the aspect of Mr. Dey highlighting that the petitioner does not have a fire licence, I find that no notice of show-cause has been issued on the petitioner by the appropriate authority of the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services, thus at this stage, without foreclosing the said issue, I am of the view, it shall be prudent to set aside the order passed by the municipal Commissioner dated 2nd September, 2026 on the ground that the same has been issued in colourable exercise of power, leaving it open to the municipal WPA 28025 of 2026 5 authorities and other appropriate authorities to take appropriate action in law, if so advised. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)