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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...