Closure under Section 416 requires prior notice under its proviso; non-compliance violates natural justice.

The petitioner operated Ajanta Cinema Hall from premises no. 24, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata–700034.

By order dated 22 August 2026, the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, directed closure of the cinema hall, principally alleging violation of Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, for operating from a residential building without appropriate permission.

The petitioner challenged the closure order on the ground that no prior show-cause notice had been issued as required under the proviso to Section 416(5).

The Corporation contended that a Joutha Committee had inspected the premises and found that the petitioner was conducting business without conversion of the building in accordance with Section 416.

The Corporation also acknowledged that the petitioner operated only a cinema hall and not a bar-cum-restaurant, despite the closure order recording otherwise.

The inspection report relied upon by the Corporation had not been disclosed to the petitioner, and the alleged absence of a valid fire licence was not identified in the impugned order.

Whether the Municipal Commissioner could direct closure of the petitioner’s cinema hall for alleged violation of Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 without issuing the notice contemplated by the proviso to Section 416(5).

Whether the closure order was vitiated by breach of natural justice and fair play because the alleged absence of a fire licence and the inspection report were not disclosed to the petitioner.

Whether the impugned order, which incorrectly recorded that the petitioner operated a bar-cum-restaurant, constituted a colourable exercise of power.

The Court applied Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, including the proviso to Section 416(5), which requires prior notice before action is taken for the alleged unauthorised use or occupation of premises in violation of the statutory requirements.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and fair play, requiring that the affected person be informed of the allegations and be given access to material relied upon by the authority before an adverse closure order is passed.

An administrative order passed without following the prescribed statutory procedure, based on undisclosed material or materially incorrect facts, may be set aside as a colourable exercise of power.

The Court found that the impugned order proceeded on the basis that the cinema hall was being operated in violation of Section 416 because requisite permission had not been obtained. However, no notice under the proviso to Section 416(5) had been served before the closure direction was issued.

The order also incorrectly described the petitioner’s business as a bar-cum-restaurant, although the Corporation accepted that the business was limited to a cinema hall.

Further, the alleged absence of a valid fire licence was not specified in the order, and the Joutha Committee’s inspection report was not furnished to the petitioner.

These procedural and factual deficiencies denied the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to respond and rendered the order contrary to natural justice and fair play.

The order was characterised as a colourable exercise of power and was accordingly set aside.

The Court left it open to the competent authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.