### Grant of Certificate of Enlistment is Independent of Change of Occupancy Sanction and Lacks Third-Party Challenge Locus

The petitioner, a stall owner at 39, Bentinck Street (formerly Paradise Cinema), challenged a fresh Certificate of Enlistment (CE) dated April 7, 2025, granted to respondent No. 19 for operating a large-format garment store ('M-Bazar').

The petitioner alleged the conversion of the premises from an "Assembly category" (cinema) to a "Mercantile building" was illegal, as the Special Officer (Building) had expressly disallowed the change of use under Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act, 1980, on December 4, 2024.

While an appeal against the rejection of change of use was pending before the Municipal Building Tribunal, the KMC issued a fresh CE.

An interim order by a Division Bench had previously shut down the store pending this writ.

During the pendency of this petition, KMC cancelled the CE, citing the Division Bench’s interim observations.

1. Whether a writ petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the grant of a Certificate of Enlistment to another trader in the same premises.

2. Whether the grant of a Certificate of Enlistment under Section 199 is conditional upon obtaining a change of occupancy/use certificate under Section 416 of the KMC Act.

3. Whether the KMC acted lawfully in cancelling the CE during the pendency of the writ proceedings without court leave.

Section 199 of the KMC Act, 1980, and the "Guidelines for Enlistment of Profession, Trade and Calling" (2020), which mandate the issuance of a CE upon submission of a self-declaration and prescribed fees.

Section 416 regarding the prohibition of change of building use, noting that sub-section (6) provides an appellate remedy before the Building Tribunal.

The court relied on the principle that a writ of mandamus requires the infringement of a specific legal right (Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy).

The court further applied precedents (Venode Kumar Jalan and Subir Bhowmick) establishing that KMC's inquiry for a CE is limited to statutory requirements and does not extend to title or external disputes.

The court reasoned that the grant of a CE is a regulatory step distinct from the "change of use" permission under Section 416.

It found that neither Section 199 nor the 2020 Guidelines list a "change of use certificate" as a prerequisite for a CE.

Regarding locus, the court held that since the petitioner is also carrying on commercial trade in the same mercantile building and the statute provides no right of notice or objection to third parties during the CE application process, the petitioner has no standing to challenge the grant.

The court distinguished the case from "unauthorised construction" precedents because a CE does not constitute a "social evil" or a public wrong of the same character.

Finally, the court scrutinized KMC’s mid-proceedings cancellation of the CE, labeling it an "overzealous" act that undermined judicial majesty, as the Division Bench had only directed a temporary shutdown of business, not a permanent cancellation of the license.

The court quashed the KMC’s order of cancellation of the CE to "restore public confidence," as it was passed without court leave while the matter was sub-judice.

The court maintained that the CE does not authorize business operations contrary to other statutory provisions.

The Municipal Building Tribunal was directed to resolve the "change of use" appeal within one month.

The petition was disposed of without costs.