Facts
The petitioners challenged a memorandum dated 28 September 2026 and an order dated 8 October 2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Building Department, Howrah Municipal Corporation, directing them to stop business from the premises under Section 179(9) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioners stated that Hotel Meghdoot had operated since 1982 and that its certificate of enlistment had not been renewed.
Source reference: p. 1–3In an earlier proceeding, WPA 16961 of 2023, the Court had held that outstanding charges could be recovered in accordance with law but could not be made a precondition to renewal of the certificate.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioners introduced the 8 October order by supplementary affidavit.
Source reference: p. 2–4The Court also considered a separate closure order dated 29 September 2026.
Source reference: p. 2–4Issues
Whether the order dated 8 October 2026 directing the petitioners to stop business was sustainable when no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been given.
Source reference: p. 3Whether the separate closure order dated 29 September 2026 could stand scrutiny under Section 179 of the Act.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
Section 179 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 empowers the Municipal Commissioner to order stoppage of business or address use of premises contrary to the section.
Source reference: p. 3Before making such an order, the affected person must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by issuance of a show-cause notice.
Source reference: p. 3The challenged order was made under Section 179(9); in addressing the separate order of 29 September, the Court referred to the proviso to Section 179(4).
Source reference: p. 2, 4Reasoning
The Court accepted that the Commissioner had power to make a stoppage order under Section 179, but found that the 8 October order disclosed no prior show-cause notice and the Municipality offered no contrary submission.
Source reference: p. 3The order therefore failed to satisfy the required hearing procedure and could not be sustained.
Source reference: p. 3Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the 29 September closure order had not been passed in accordance with Section 179 and set it aside as well.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 8 October 2026 and directed that all consequences arising from it, including closure of the petitioners’ business premises, be lifted.
It also set aside the closure order dated 29 September 2026.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Municipality remained free to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, subject to compliance with the required procedure.
Source reference: p. 3–4The writ petition was disposed of.
Source reference: p. 3–4Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 19801
Original Court PDF
M/S HOTEL MEGHDOOT AND ANRvsTHE HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Non-inclusion in railway pass or medical records cannot alone defeat compassionate appointment consideration.. YADVENDRA vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY. CAT - ['Allahabad']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/non-inclusion-in-railway-pass-or-medical-records-cannot-alone-defeat-compassionate-appoint-e186bad941e646b9b28be0fa75663d2f.webp)
![Ten years’ qualifying service is not required for family pension after one year of continuous railway service.. ANJANA DEVI vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY. CAT - ['Allahabad']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/ten-years-qualifying-service-is-not-required-for-family-pension-after-one-year-of-continuo-21aef602d06c48fbabbee8c57d854298.webp)