Page No.# 1/6 vs The Gauhati Municipal Corporation And 3 ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2267 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The Gauhati Municipal Corporation And 3 ... on 24 January, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                  Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010004232025




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:779

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/190/2025

         M/S CAR SERVICING CENTER AND ANR
         A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL
         PLACE OF BUSINESS AT A.T. ROAD, SANTIPUR, GUWAHATI-09, DIST-
         KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI
         BISWAJEET SAKLADAR

         2: BISWAJAEET SAKLADAR
          S/O SUDHENDU SAKLADAR
          R/O BHASKAR NAGAR
          KALAPAHAR
          GUWAHATI-18
          DIST- KAMRUP (M)
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         THE GAUHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI

         2:THE LICENCING OFFICER
          GMC
         WEST ZONE
          GMC OFICE
          BISWANATH
          SANTIPUR
          GUWAHATI-781009

         3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          GMC
          I/C WEST ZONE
          BHUTNATH
          GUWAHATI-781009

         4:KHANINDRA NATH DAS
                                                                           Page No.# 2/6

             S/O LATE CHAKRADHAR DAS
             R/O A.T. ROAD
             SANTIPUR
             GUWAHATI-09
             KAMRUP (M)
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S P ROY, MR.T YADAV,MS. P AGARWALA,MS. V
RAI,JYOTISH DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

JUDGMENT & ORDER Date : 24-01-2025

Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation [GMC] for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3.

2. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the name of the respondent no. 4 can be struck off from the array of respondents.

3. In view of the above submission made by Mr. Roy, the name of the respondent no. 4 is struck off at the cost and risk of the petitioners. The Registry to do the needful.

4. In view of the limited nature of challenge made in this writ petition on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the instructions received by Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC in deference to the Order dated 20.01.2025, this writ petition is taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.

Page No.# 3/6

5. The case projected by the petitioners, briefly, is that they were running a business of car washing center from an ekchalia Assam Type house by obtaining a trade licence from the respondent GMC. The petitioners were running the business from the said premise as tenants. It has been averred that the petitioners have been paying the monthly rental to the owner of the premise regularly. In order to run the said business, the petitioners obtained the trade licence under the provisions of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 ['the GMC Act, 1971', for short] in the name and style of M/s Car Servicing Center [the petitioner no. 1] wherein the petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor. The trade licence bearing no. 1723190438360156 has been renewed from time to time and as per the last renewal, the trade licence has validity up to 31.03.2025.

6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there has been litigations between the petitioners on one side and the owner of the tenanted premises on the other side. A title suit, Title Suit no. 245/2024 has been instituted by the petitioners as the plaintiffs and the owners of the plot of land wherein the tenanted premises is located and wherefrom the petitioners were running the business in the name and style of M/s Car Servicing Center as the defendant on the other side and the said title suit is pending as on date.

7. The petitioners have approached this Court by this writ petition assailing action of the respondent GMC authorities in cancelling the trade licence issued in favour of the petitioners as the respondent GMC authorities by its Communication bearing no. GLS/WZ/96/2024-25/23 dated 18.12.2024 has intimated the petitioner no. 2 that the trade licence issued in the name and style of M/s Car Servicing Center [the petitioner no. 2] has been cancelled after approval of the Commissioner, GMC in File no. GEF/84/2024-25.

Page No.# 4/6

8. The primary ground of challenge to such cancellation of the trade licence is that the petitioners was not served with any kind of prior notice and prior to the impugned cancellation, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. The decision to cancel the trade licence is also challenged on the ground that no order of cancellation has been served upon the petitioner. It is only by the Communication dated 18.12.2024, the petitioner has been informed that its trade licence has been cancelled. Pursuant to the cancellation of the trade licence, the respondent GMC authorities have also sealed the tenanted premises wherefrom the business were being run by the petitioners.

9. To support the ground of challenge, Mr. Roy has referred to the provisions contained in Section 378[3] of the GMC Act, 1971 wherein the procedure for cancellation has been laid down.

10. Mr. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC who sought time to obtain instructions on 20.01.2025, has submitted that he has obtained instructions and as per the said instructions, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the Communication bearing no. GLS/WZ/96/2024-25/23 dated 18.12.2024.

11. In the provisions contained in sub-section [3] of Section 378 of the GMC Act, 1971, it has inter-alia been laid down that any licence or written permission granted under the said Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder, can be suspended or revoked by the Commissioner or by the employee by whom it was granted, at any time, if he is satisfied that it has been secured by the grantee through misrepresentation or fraud or if any of its restrictions or conditions has been infringed or evaded by the grantee, or if the grantee has been convicted for the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any rule or bye-law Page No.# 5/6

made thereunder relating to any matter for which the licence or permission has been granted. In the proviso to sub-section [3] of Section 378, it has been prescribed that - [a] before making any order of suspension or revocation reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the grantee of the licence or the written permission, to show cause why it should not be suspended or revoked; and [b] every such order shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for the suspension or revocation of the licence or the written permission.

12. It is evidently clear from the provisions of sub-section [3] of Section 378 and the proviso thereto that the principles of natural justice are to be followed in the matter of cancellation of a trade licence before making any order of cancellation and reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the grantee of the licence or the written permission, to show cause why it should not be cancelled by issuing a prior notice indicating the reasons why such an action is being contemplated.

13. From the instructions placed from the respondent GMC authorities, it is noticed that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancellation of the trade licence bearing no. GMC/WZ/5/GTL/202122/12148098, meaning thereby, the petitioner was not afforded with any kind of opportunity of hearing prior to the cancellation of the trade licence, which had validity up to 31.03.2025. The principles of natural justice further require that before any kind of action like cancellation, the person who is likely to be suffered by the action, should be informed about the grounds on which such action is proposed and a prior noticee to that effect intimating the grounds is required to be served so that the noticee can have a proper and effective opportunity to respond to such notice.

Page No.# 6/6

14. As the principles of natural justice are found violated in the case in hand while cancelling the trade licence bearing no. GMC/WZ/5/GTL/202122/ 12148098, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the action of cancelling trade licence bearing no. GMC/WZ/5/GTL/202122/12148098 issued in favour of the petitioner no. 1 wherein the petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor is not sustainable in law as the procedure adopted was clearly in violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 378[3] of the GMC Act, 1971 and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed.

15. As the order of cancellation of trade licence has been set aside, the respondent authorities shall de-seal the premise of the petitioners, which has been sealed pursuant to the cancellation of the trade licence, forthwith.

16. It is further observed that the setting aside of the impugned cancellation of the trade licence, shall not preclude the respondent GMC authorities to initiate any process of cancellation afresh by following the principle of natural justice; the provisions contained in Section 378[3] of the GMC Act, 1971; and in accordance with law.

16. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant