Alleged change of building use cannot justify cancellation of an enlistment certificate without Section 272 proceedings.

The petitioner operated a small eatery, “Tanic Food,” from a ground-floor shop in a G+III building in Bidhannagar.

The erstwhile Rajarhat Gopalpur Municipality had issued him a certificate of enlistment in 2007, which was renewed from time to time.

On 14 August 2026, the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation cancelled the certificate, citing conversion of a car-parking/garage space into a shop, absence of a West Bengal Pollution Control Board no-objection certificate, and absence of a fire indemnity bond.

The Corporation alleged that the business operated from a garage without necessary permission, but acknowledged that it had not initiated proceedings under Section 272 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.

Whether the Corporation could cancel the petitioner’s certificate of enlistment on the stated grounds, including the alleged change of use, without initiating proceedings under Section 272 of the Act.

Whether the alleged absence of a Pollution Control Board clearance justified cancellation where the Board’s record indicated that the petitioner’s business was outside its purview.

Section 141 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 provides for certificates of enlistment for persons engaged or intending to engage in a profession, trade, or calling within the Corporation’s jurisdiction; Section 141(2) contemplates provisional enlistment where a statutory clearance remains pending.

Section 272 governs action concerning a change of use of a building and requires a reasonable opportunity to show cause before the relevant order is made.

The Court also relied on Soumendra Kristo Dutt & Anr. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., AIR 2021 Cal 141, for the limited scope of enquiry in granting a certificate of enlistment.

The Court noted that the petitioner appeared to be in lawful possession of the shop and had held a certificate of enlistment since 2007, renewed over the years.

The Pollution Control Board proceedings indicated that the nature of the petitioner’s business was outside the Board’s purview, and no proceedings had been initiated against him by the Board.

As to the alleged conversion of a garage into a shop, the Act provided a procedure under Section 272, but the Corporation had not initiated that procedure.

In light of the limited scope of enquiry for enlistment, the Court found that cancelling the certificate on the stated grounds amounted to a colourable exercise of power.

The writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs.