A municipality may refuse or cancel a trade licence where the landlord disputes the applicant’s tenancy.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s R.D. Trading Co., was inducted as a tenant by respondent no. 5 for one room on 1 August 2016 and obtained a municipal trade licence on 16 August 2016, which was renewed periodically and remained valid until 30 March 2025.

After applying for renewal on 31 March 2025, the petitioner learnt that the landlord had objected to the renewal.

The petitioner thereafter instituted Misc. (NJ) Case No. 285/2024 and claimed to have deposited rent from June 2024 onwards.

In an earlier writ petition, WP(C)/3641/2025, the High Court directed the Municipal Board to hear both parties and decide the matter.

Following a hearing on 30 July 2025, the Municipal Board issued a show-cause notice dated 19 November 2025 proposing cancellation of the trade licence, referring to a forensic report allegedly finding the landlord’s signature on the tenancy agreement to be forged.

The petitioner denied forgery and contended that the forensic report had not been supplied to him.

By order dated 9 January 2026, the Jorhat Municipal Board cancelled the trade licence, leading to the present writ petition.

1. Whether the Municipal Board could refuse renewal/cancel the petitioner’s trade licence when the landlord disputed the tenancy and objected to the petitioner’s occupation of the premises.

2. Whether the impugned cancellation order was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice because the forensic report relied upon by the Municipal Board was not furnished to the petitioner.

3. Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for availability of an appellate remedy under Section 233 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.

The Court applied Section 233 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, which provides an appellate remedy against municipal orders.

It relied on the principle that a municipality may insist upon proof of a valid tenancy or the owner’s consent as a condition precedent for issuance or renewal of a trade licence where the applicant occupies premises as a tenant, as recognised in the Court’s decision dated 23 October 2019 in WP(C)/3378/2014.

On natural justice, the Court relied on Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 492, and the principle in The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256, that natural justice is flexible, cannot be reduced to a rigid formula, and requires the complaining party to demonstrate real prejudice rather than a merely technical breach.

In certiorari proceedings, judicial review is directed primarily to the decision-making process, including consideration of relevant factors, exclusion of extraneous considerations, and absence of mala fides.

The Court held that the central circumstance was not merely the forensic report but the undisputed existence of a serious dispute concerning the petitioner’s tenancy, evidenced by the landlord’s objection and the pending civil proceeding.

Since a valid tenancy arrangement or owner’s consent could be required for renewal of a trade licence, the Municipal Board was justified in declining to continue the licence when the owner contested the petitioner’s right to occupy the premises.

Although the forensic report had not been separately supplied, the petitioner had received notice, participated in the hearing directed in the earlier writ petition, and was subsequently given an opportunity to respond to the proposed cancellation.

Applying the flexible and prejudice-based standard governing natural justice, the Court concluded that no substantial prejudice or failure of fair hearing had been demonstrated.

The impugned order was therefore based on relevant considerations and did not warrant interference under certiorari jurisdiction.

In view of the merits, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide the objection based on the alternative remedy under Section 233.

It held that the Municipal Board could refuse renewal and cancel the trade licence in light of the landlord’s bona fide objection and the unresolved dispute regarding the petitioner’s tenancy.

The non-supply of the forensic report did not invalidate the decision because adequate opportunity of hearing had been provided and no real prejudice was established.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the order dated 9 January 2026 was not interfered with.