Renewal of a Certificate of Enlistment cannot be conditioned on payment of separate statutory charges.

Petitioner No. 1, a hotel-cum-bar operated by Petitioner No. 2, had conducted business in Howrah since 1982 and had previously renewed its Certificate of Enlistment (CE) annually.

After the last renewal for 2018–19, the petitioners applied for renewal for 2019–20 and subsequently applied in later years, except 2021–22; the Corporation’s report stated that the 2019–20 demand remained unpaid, the 2020–21 application was not traced, and the 2022–23 application was rejected over a discrepancy in the recorded area.

For 2023–24, the Corporation issued a demand of ₹12,96,000, comprising CE-related charges, charges under Section 192, conservancy charges, arrears and penalty.

The petitioners challenged the Corporation’s refusal to renew the CE unless the demand was paid.

1. Whether the Corporation could make payment of charges under Section 192 and other heads a condition of renewing the petitioners’ Certificate of Enlistment

2. Whether the petitioners were liable for the demanded Section 192 charges, conservancy fees, arrears and penalty for the relevant years

Section 102 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (HMC Act) governs enlistment and renewal for a profession, trade or calling, subject to the prescribed application fee and documents; enlistment does not absolve a person from obtaining any separate licence required under the Act or other law.

Sections 190 and 191 concern permissions for specified premises and activities, while Section 192(1) requires a separate licence to keep an eating house, hotel or other specified establishment; Section 192(2) addresses suspension or cancellation of that licence.

The Court relied on Vijai Shree Pvt. Limited v. Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors., Harvinder Singh v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., and Sri Tripti Kumar Chatterjee v. Principal Secretary & Ors. for the principle that renewal or grant of enlistment is not dependent on obtaining separate permissions or licences.

The Court treated renewal of the CE as distinct from the Corporation’s power to demand fees or charges under other statutory heads.

It held that charges under Section 192 and other heads could not be bundled with the CE renewal demand as a precondition to renewal, particularly where the Corporation had previously renewed the enlistment without such charges.

However, it did not decide whether the petitioners were substantively liable for the Section 192 charges, conservancy fees, arrears or penalty. Those claims could be pursued separately in accordance with law, after notice and an opportunity for the petitioners to object.

The direction did not bar the Corporation from pursuing other charges, including penalty, through lawful proceedings, and the Court clarified that the CE alone did not authorise the petitioners to conduct the hotel-cum-bar business.