Kolkata civic body cannot cancel liquor shop’s enlistment on an unstated residential-use restriction, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioner operated a foreign-liquor on-shop at the ground floor of Akka Apartment, Nayabad, Kolkata, after her excise licence was transferred from Arambag to that site and the required permissions and certificates of enlistment were obtained.

Following objections from apartment residents, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) issued a show-cause notice and cancelled her certificate of enlistment on 2 June 2026.

On post-decisional hearing, the apartment secretary stated that the business caused no disturbance and that he had no objection to its continuation, but the KMC maintained the cancellation, considering the premises residential and relying on Sections 435 and 435A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation and the subsequent order.

1. Whether the KMC’s cancellation of the petitioner’s certificate of enlistment for operating a foreign-liquor on-shop in a residential complex was lawful under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

2. Whether the cancellation was arbitrary where the petitioner’s excise licence and municipal permissions had been granted after scrutiny, and the KMC had permitted liquor businesses in other residential premises.

The Court considered Sections 435 and 435A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which regulate business use of premises and, in the Court’s construction, do not impose a prohibition on a wine or liquor shop in a residential building alongside a major road.

Section 435A concerns specified non-hazardous commercial or trade activities, while Section 435 governs use of premises for purposes listed in Schedule V without, or contrary to, municipal permission.

Sections 421 and 425 address municipal permission for uses including a liquor house or shop, subject to the relevant licence or permission from the Government or another statutory authority.

The Court also referred to Sections 343(5) and 346 concerning the municipal register and classification of public streets, and Section 2(71), defining “public street” to include a road.

The petitioner’s site transfer had been scrutinised under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of Licence for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003, including consideration of the law-and-order position.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s proposed site had undergone excise scrutiny, including consideration of its suitability and law-and-order implications, and that the relevant licence and municipal permissions had been granted.

The KMC’s cancellation order did not adequately identify the applicable road classification or establish that the site was subject to a statutory prohibition; nor did the subsequent order properly address the permission granted under Section 421.

The Court held that Section 435A did not itself bar liquor shops in residential premises and that the KMC could not impose a restriction not found in the statute or apply it selectively, particularly when liquor businesses had been permitted in other residential premises.

The cancellation was therefore arbitrary and perverse.

The writ petition and the connected application were disposed of.