Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amar Paul vs The Asansol Municipal Corporation & Ors on 8 March, 2016
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
1 02 08.03.16
A.S.T. 89 of 2016 Amar Paul Vs. The Asansol Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Srijib Chakborty Mr. Anindya Bose Mr. Prabir Gayen .... For the Petitioner. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee .... For the Asansol Municipal Corporation. Let copies of all papers of the proceedings be served upon the Asansol Municipal Corporation by the advocate-on-record for the petitioner.
As held by Mr. Justice Susanta Chatterjee in Vinode Kumar Jalan Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. in 1987(2) CHN 219 and affirmed by the Division Bench in another matter Abdul Rashid Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 234, the occupancy of a person carrying on business is the criterion for grant or renewal of a trade S.D. license.
Therefore, with reference to the impugned notice dated 4th March, 2016 issued by the Asansol Municipal 2 Corporation, the petitioner may only be asked to satisfy the Municipal Corporation regarding his occupancy of the subject premises.
The Corporation will consider the same by a reasoned order upon hearing the petitioner within eight weeks of communication of this order.
I make it clear that a tenant or licensee holding over shall be deemed to be a person in occupation of the premises.
No steps are to be taken by the Corporation till the above decision is taken and for a further period of four weeks from that date to enable the petitioner to approach a higher forum, if necessary.
All the papers are before this Court. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
The writ application is thus disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the petitioners upon usual undertaking.
( I.P. Mukerji, J.) 3