Calcutta High Court
WPA/30661/2026 of SUDIP BARMAN Vs THE COMMISSIONER THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS on 14 October 2026
sb Ct.3. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 30661 of 2026 Sudip Barman Versus The Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. Mr. Nitai Chandra Saha Ms. Nisha Agarwal … For the petitioner. Mr. Tapas Kumar Chatterjee Mr.
14.10.2026
sb
Ct.3.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 30661 of 2026
Sudip Barman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Nitai Chandra Saha
Ms. Nisha Agarwal
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Chatterjee
Mr. Biswaranjan Bhakat
Mr. Sailen Naskar
… For the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
2. Challenging the order dated 24th August 2026 purportedly issued by the Municipal Commissioner though the same does not bear the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, whereby the petitioner has been directed to completely close down his business run under the name and style of M/s Joyotu Udyog from 206, Satyen Roy Road, Kolkata - 700034 and the suspension of petitioner’s certificate of enlistment, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the above order has been issued for violation of Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), I find that the same does not comply with the provisions of Section 416(5) proviso of the said Act. No
WPA 30661 of 2026
prior show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The abrupt closure of the petitioner’s business and suspension of the petitioner’s certificate of enlistment appears to be an act in colourable exercise of power. The closure notice is also not signed by the Municipal Commissioner. Apparently, there appears to be no application of mind and appears to be mechanical exercise of authority.
4. Consequently, the notice of closure dated 24th August, 2026 cannot be sustained, the same is quashed and the writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open to the municipality to take steps in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, the order of suspension of the certificate of enlistment also stands revoked.
5. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)