Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Mukherjee & Ors vs The Asansol Municipal Corporation & Ors on 21 February, 2017
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
21.02.2017.
3
AGM
W.P. 2507 (W) of 2017
Suman Mukherjee & Ors
Vs.
The Asansol Municipal Corporation & Ors
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,
Mr. Anindya Bose,
... for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharya,
Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya,
... for the Asansol Corporation.
The sole grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is
non-renewal of trade license for the year 2016-17.
It appears that the fees for renewal of trade license to the
tune of Rs. 1 lakh was demanded by the Municipal Corporation,
which was also paid by the petitioner.
The attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure P-3 at page
59, which contains the instruction that as per the direction of the
Mayor, the fees may be collected. Despite the receipt of the said
amount, there is no attempt on the part of the Corporation either
to renew the trade license issued to the partnership firm of the
petitioner nor any order of rejection is communicated. The
authorities are sleeping in slumber with the sense that they would
wake up only after Court process is activated.
2
On the last occasion, this Court asks the Municipal
Corporation to furnish the relevant document relating to charging
of enlistment fees at such astronomical rate. Today the learned
advocate appearing for the Asansol Municipal Corporation hands
over the notification dated 26th February 2010 by which the cap
imposed under Section 141 (1) of the West Bengal Municipal
Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2009 was omitted.
The meeting of the Board of Councillors of the said
Municipal Corporation held on 31st October 2016 is also handed
over whereby and whereunder the rate for enlistment certificate
has been revised and/or changed and since the petitioner falls
within the category of 'Coal Washary Plant', the proposed rate of
fees is indicated at Rs. 1 lakh.
It is a matter of shock that the authorities after receiving
such fees is still sitting tight over the matter and have not renewed
the enlistment certificate as yet. It is submitted at the bar that all
other formalities, which are required therefor, has not been
observed and precisely for such reason the decision could not be
taken.
Be that as it may, the respondent no. 3 is directed to renew
the enlistment certificate within three weeks from the date of communication of this order provided all the formalities and the paraphernalia required therefor is fulfilled by the petitioner. 3 The writ petition is thus disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)