The Calcutta High Court has held that, under Section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the 28 August 2020 guidelines, a certificate of enlistment is to be examined within the statutory framework governing enlistment, and the statute does not confer on a third party like the petitioner any right to notice or objection against its grant. Therefore, in the absence of a demonstrable legal right infringed, the petitioner could not maintain a writ petition seeking cancellation of the certificate of enlistment.
The Court further held that non-grant or pendency of dispute regarding change of use under Section 416 does not, by itself, render the certificate of enlistment bad, although such certificate does not independently authorise business operations in breach of other statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Court quashed the Municipal Commissioner’s subsequent order cancelling the certificate of enlistment, on the ground that such cancellation had been made without leave of the Court and without any judicial direction to cancel the licence.
Also Read ITAT: DRP Cannot Cross ‘Laxman Rekha’ of Judicial Discipline While Criticising Tribunal Orders
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury examined Section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the 28 August 2020 guidelines governing certificate of enlistment, and held that although the scheme requires submission of a self-declaration in the prescribed format, it does not expressly make a change of use permission or change of occupancy certificate a mandatory document for grant of a certificate of enlistment. The Bench specifically recorded that it was unable to identify any such requirement either from Section 199 or from the relevant guidelines. It then contrasted this with Section 416, which separately prohibits change of use of a building without written permission of the Municipal Commissioner and provides an independent statutory mechanism, including appeal to the Municipal Building Tribunal.
On maintainability and locus, the Bench held that a challenge to grant of a certificate of enlistment does not stand on the same footing as a challenge to unauthorised construction. It observed that the petitioner could succeed in mandamus only if he could show a statutory duty owed by the authority and a corresponding legal right in himself. Since Section 199 and the guidelines do not provide any right to notice or objection by a third party at the stage of grant of certificate of enlistment, the petitioner had no legal right to challenge its issuance. The Bench also noted that the petitioner himself was carrying on commercial activity from the same mercantile building.
Also Read Delhi High Court Allows 17-Year-Old Son to Donate Part of Liver to Save Ailing Father
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that grant of a certificate of enlistment does not authorise a party to carry on business contrary to other provisions of the statute. However, in the facts of the case, the certificate itself could not be held bad merely because the appeal against rejection of change of use was pending before the Tribunal, especially when the online application had been made during the subsistence of an interim order in WPO 1234 of 2024.
The High Court also took serious exception to the Municipal Commissioner’s later cancellation of the certificate of enlistment on the strength of the Division Bench’s interim order dated 16 February 2026, holding that the Division Bench had only directed stoppage of business operations and had not directed cancellation of the certificate. According to the Bench, the cancellation was an overzealous act undertaken without leave of the Court and undermined the majesty of the Court.
Also Read SC Stays Pronouncement of Arbitral Award in HCL-DISCOM Dispute
Briefly, the petition challenged a fresh certificate of enlistment dated 7 April 2025 issued in favour of respondent no. 19 for operating a garment departmental store from 39, Bentinck Street, Kolkata, where Paradise Cinema Hall had earlier functioned. The petitioner, a stall owner at the same premises, alleged that after the cinema hall shut down in 2020 and its cinema licence was surrendered, respondent nos. 18 and 19 illegally converted the premises from an “Assembly” use to a “Mercantile building” without obtaining the requisite permission for change of use under Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The petitioner also relied on earlier proceedings in which the Special Officer (Building), by order dated 4 December 2024, had disallowed the change of use, and that order was affirmed by the Mayor-in-Council on 13 December 2024. The respondent nos. 18 and 19 had challenged that order before the Municipal Building Tribunal, where the appeal remained pending. Meanwhile, a fresh certificate of enlistment was issued on 7 April 2025, which led to the present petition seeking its cancellation.
The petitioner argued that Section 199 of the Act, read with the 28 August 2020 guidelines, made compliance with the online self-declaration requirements a statutory pre-condition for grant of a certificate of enlistment. According to the petitioner, Annexure II required an unequivocal declaration that the premises was compliant with KMC laws and that the use was neither illegal nor unauthorised; hence, obtaining a certificate of enlistment despite rejection of change of use amounted to a false declaration and fraud on the Corporation and the Court. The private respondents, on the other hand, contended that certificate of enlistment and change of occupancy/use were distinct issues, that the 2020 guidelines did not require production of a change of occupancy certificate for obtaining a certificate of enlistment, and that the application for the fresh certificate had been made when an interim protective order was in force.
