Skip to main content

No place other than municipal market can be used as a market place without license

In Soham Lal Manpuria and Ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors., High Court of Calcutta held that no place other than municipal market shall be used as a market place unless such place has been licensed as a market by Municipal Commissioner

Present writ petition is filed for a direction upon corporation authorities to take steps for demolition of illegal construction and stoppage of illegal running of private market on lands of Petitioner. Subject matter of dispute discernable from writ petition pertains to firstly inaction on part of Municipal Commissioner to decide representation filed by Petitioners, and secondly, whether market established by market committee and constructions made thereupon is strictly inconformity with provisions of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Chapter XXIV of said Act contains exhaustive provisions relating to markets and slaughter houses. Said chapter imbibed within itself municipal markets and private markets. Section 428 of Act, clearly provides that, no place other than a municipal market shall be used as a market place unless such place has been licensed as a market by Municipal Commissioner under Section 436 of Act. Municipal licenses are dealt with under Chapter XXV. Section 435 of Act, thereof puts an embargo on any person to use any premises for any of non-residential purposes mentioned in Schedule V without municipal license granted by Municipal Commissioner. Though Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India, guarantees all citizens right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business but same is not an absolute right which would be evident from Article 19(6) of Constitution.

Sections 437 and 438 of Act create an absolute prohibition against establishment and/or opening of market for public without valid license. It is therefore manifest from aforesaid provisions that, Municipal Commissioner has to form a conclusive opinion with precision and information whether such market is established in conformity with aforesaid provisions or not.

A plea has been taken by Corporation that, said market was established prior to inclusion of Jadavpur Municipality within Kolkata Municipal Corporation. No records pertaining to any permission granted by Jadavpur Municipality to establish and run market for public nor any document relating to sanction being granted for construction of shops or stalls are produced. If stand of Corporation is considered to be true and correct for sake of argument, yet it does not absolve Corporation from arriving at definite opinion on various provisions of Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. Chapter 17 of aforesaid Act contains somewhat similar provisions to Chapter XXIV and XXV of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. Identical prohibition is provided in aforesaid Act and therefore, illegalities cannot get cured and/or validated as said municipality is subsequently included in Corporation.

Section 626 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, indicates that, the moment any area is included within periphery of Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which was earlier within limits of municipality, Municipal Act governing shall be admitted to be repealed and provisions of Acts, Rules and Regulations framed under Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980 shall apply except State Government by notification may otherwise direct.

Illegal acts under repealed Act does not automatically get validated and/or receive legal sanction as said Act stood repealed by virtue of inclusion of area within territorial limits of Kolkata Municipal Act, 1980. Municipal Commissioner is required to consider those aspects, more particularly the notification issued and published by State Government at time of inclusion of Jadavpur area within territorial circumference of Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

Municipal Commissioner is directed to consider representation and shall decide same after affording an opportunity of hearing to Petitioner and all interested persons, by recording proper reasons within 4 weeks from date of communication of this order. Petition disposed off.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even