K. M. YUSUF, J. ( 1 ) - The petitioners moved the writ court against the Memo dated 28th August, 1987 issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners having 40% and 60% of shares, respectively. The registered partnership firm was established in January 1965 but the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business of manufacturing various goods since 1964 on obtaining the trade licence from the Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality. The office of the petitioners is located at 225, Dwarik Jungle Road, Uttarpara, and the factory is situated at 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (previously Holding No. 108) in Kotrung. The said Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road was purchased with the money of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered Conveyance, dated 22nd April, 1966 but the name of the respondent No. 5, Sanjiblal Bose (who is the full brother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) was included in the said Conveyance as one of the purchasers on the insistence of their mother, since deceased. The petitioners' case is that the said respondent No. 5 has no right, title and interest in the said business carried on by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and he never raised any objection of any kind since the factory premises was constructed on the basis of the plan duly signed by respondent No. 5 and sanctioned by the Municipality in 1966. But after the death of the mother the respondent No. 5 started mischief. When sometime in June 1987 the petitioner No. 2 went to deposit the fee f6r the renewal of the trade licence for 1987-88 with the Municipality the same was refused and the respondent No. 3 issued two Memos of different dates in June 1987 directing the petitioners to meet him and finalise the matter regarding taxation of the said Holding. When sometime in June 1987 the petitioner No. 2 went to deposit the fee f6r the renewal of the trade licence for 1987-88 with the Municipality the same was refused and the respondent No. 3 issued two Memos of different dates in June 1987 directing the petitioners to meet him and finalise the matter regarding taxation of the said Holding. Thereafter by a Memo dated 17th August, 1987 the petitioners were asked by the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality to attend the office on 28th August, 1987 to settle the dispute about trade licence of the business and finally came the order dated 28th August, 1947 under challenge wherein the Vice-Chairman asked the petitioners to apportion the Holding and shift the factory to the portion of the petitioners and till then the trade licence would remain suspended the contention of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and Rules thereunder the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have no jurisdiction to stop the petitioners from taking out trade licence in respect of the factory business and the further contention is that the dispute raised by the respondent No. 5 relating to right, title and interest in the property is purely of civil nature and outside the purview of the Municipality to decide. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 5, Sanjiblal Bose, filed an application for vacating the interim order of 16th September, 1987 by which the Hon'ble High Court restrained the respondents from giving effect to and/or further effect to the impugned order of 28th August, 1987. In the said application the respondent No. 5 stated that the property in question has not yet been partitioned and the owners have not been separately recorded. The said respondent further stated that he never applied for the sanction of any plan for any factory or for any other purpose to the Municipality along with his other two brothers. He further stated that he filed several applications before the Municipality for apportionment of the Holding in question and for separate taxation as well as fear removal of factory from his land and cancellation of the Municipal trade licence. It is contended that the petitioners axe possessing and enjoying the land fraudulently by starting a factory thereon and obtained an order from the Hon'ble High Court causing loss and injury to this respondent. It is contended that the petitioners axe possessing and enjoying the land fraudulently by starting a factory thereon and obtained an order from the Hon'ble High Court causing loss and injury to this respondent. The petitioners in an objection the said application for vacating the interim order reiterated their case as stated in the writ petition. The petitioners' whole case is that at the insistence of their deceased mother the respondent No. 5 was dragged into the property as one of the purchasers and his signature was obtained on the plan submitted for sanction. They denied the computation of fraud as alleged in the application for vacating the interim order as absolutely incorrect. And further that they are unaware of the contents of the representation made to the Municipality. ( 3 ) MR. Basu, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that the licence was issued under section 182 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 since 1964 without any obstruction. He further submitted that the Municipality derives power to impose taxes on trades, professions and callings under section 123 (1) (c) of the Bengal Municipal Act as specified in Schedule IV. He further submitted that the State Government has power to make Rules relating to taxation under section 215 (f) of the Act. He submitted that he is not carrying any offensive and dangerous trade which comes under the mischief of section 370 of the Act. The Municipality can, of course, suspend or revoke the licence only under section of the Act. Mr. Basu cited the case of In re: Venode Kumar Jalan v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others reported in 1987 (II) CHN 219 =cal. L. T. 1987 (I) H. C. 333 wherein Mr. Justice Susanta Chatterji referring to the scope of inquiry as envisaged in section 200 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1986 held that the Corporation could not enter into the question of title of property As such the learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order of the Municipality is bad in law and beyond its authority and liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. Halder, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 5, submitted that by virtue of section 371a of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 factory or workshop cannot be established without the permission of the Commissioners and the State Government and as such the factory of the petitioners are in violation of this Act and the licence must be revoked. and/or cancelled and no licence can be granted under section 182 relating to manufacturing goods which come under the purview of section 370 of the Act. He further submitted that the respondent No. 5 is legally entitled to the apportionment of his share of holding. ( 5 ) A perusal of the writ application indicates that the business of manufacturing various goods is being earned on at Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (previously Holding No. 108), presently 24, Udayan Palli, Kotrung; and the very name of the partnership business is "associated Industrial Traders". The averment made in paragraphs 1, 4 and 5 bring the business of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 under the mischief of section 370 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and is clearly hit by section 371a of the said Act. Though it is a fact that the respondent No. 1, the partnership arm, game into existence in 1905 but the business was being carried on since 1964 by obtaining a trade licence from the Municipality under section 182 whereas section 371a of the said Act came into force by way of amendment in 1980 but this does not exonerate the petitioners from the purview of section 371a. The learned Advocate of the petitioners has referred to the principle underlined in the case of Venode Kumar Jalan (supra) under section 200 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 wherein Susanta Chatterji, J. held that the scope of enquiry in section 200 (3) is limited and the Corporation cannot enter into the question of title of any property which can be decided by a competent civil court and cannot be investigated by the Corporation Section 182 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 corresponds to sections 199 and 200 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1986. It must be stated that merely obtaining a Licence by payment of tax imposed on professions, trades and callings under section 182 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 does not imp facto exonerate the petitioners from the purview of section 371a of the said Act to establish in any place within the Municipality any factory or workshop without the previous permission of the Commissioners and also of the State Government. Merely obtaining a trade licence under section 182 of the said Act is not sufficient to carry on any kind of business activity without compliance of other provisions of law and one who violates the other provisions of law as laid down in the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 is liable to be prosecuted and penalised in accordance with law. I have dealt with this aspect of sections 199 and 200 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (corresponding substantially to section 182 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, exhaustively in the case of Abdur Rashid v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in Cal. L. T. 1990 (1) HC 127= A. I. R. 1990 Cal. 37=1989 (1) C. L. J 412=1989 (1) C. H. N. 420 as well as in the case of Ashoke De v. State of West and Ors. reported in 1989 (1) C. L. J 470 = 1989 (II) C. H N. 302 The principle laid down therein holds goods in the instant case as well of course, the Vice Chairman 6f the Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality has no authority to issue the impugned Memo dated 28th August, 1987 to apportion the holding and shift the factory to the portion owned by the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, but certainly the Municipality has the authority, to investigate whether the business or trade being carried on at the premises in question is in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and particularly sections 370 (xii) and (xiv) and 371a of the said Act. Merely granting of a licence by payment of tax under section 182 of the said Act does not entitle any person to carry on any hostess of factory or workshop of any kind at his sweet will. Merely granting of a licence by payment of tax under section 182 of the said Act does not entitle any person to carry on any hostess of factory or workshop of any kind at his sweet will. In fact, the licence under section 182 is a tax imposed on professions, trades and callings and the payment is made as specified in Schedule IV under section 132 (1) (c) of the said Act but this trade licence does not confer upon any person unlimited license to carry on any manufacturing industry, factory or workshop in contravention of other provisions of the said Act. The petitioners have made out a good case that the impugned Memo of the Municipality dated 28th August, 1987 is bad in law as it raises a question of civil dispute which must be decided in a competent civil court. But at the same time the Municipality has the right to see that a so called trade hence obtained under section 182 of the Act should not be utilised for the purpose of establishment in any place within the Municipality of any factory of workshop without the previous permission of the Commissioners of the Municipality and also of the State Government, and the Municipality must see whether the trade or business carried on the basis of a licence obtained under section 182 of the Act is strictly in conformity with sections 376 and 371a of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, otherwise, such trade cannot be earned on an trade licence under section 182 cannot be issued or renewed. If such a licence was issued wrongly or illegally, such wrong or illegal act cannot be legalised merely on the basis of holding such a licence for a number of years. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances the impugned Memo dated 28th August, 1987 issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality is set aside and quashed. The shifting of the factory as claimed by respondent No. 5 to the portion of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in the said Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (Previously Holding No. 108) as well as the apportionment of the said Holding in respect of which a dispute has arisen between the brothers as to its title is a dispute of civil nature and cannot be decided by the Municipality but by a competent civil court. 1 and 2 in the said Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (Previously Holding No. 108) as well as the apportionment of the said Holding in respect of which a dispute has arisen between the brothers as to its title is a dispute of civil nature and cannot be decided by the Municipality but by a competent civil court. It is beyond the power of the Municipality to decide whether the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the actual owners of the holding or the respondent No. 5 is also a co-sharer with them. But the Municipality has every right before issuing the trade licence under section 182 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 to ascertain after proper enquiry whether the factory which deals with manufacturing of various goods situated at Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (previously Holding No. 108) is being earned on strictly in accordance with sections 370 and 371a of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 even though the business has been established since 1964. On being satisfied on this aspect of the investigation a trade licence may be issued or renewed under section 182, otherwise not. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter the writ petition is accordingly allowed in part with the aforesaid direction. There will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) THE Registrar, Appellate Side, is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Chairman, Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality, Respondent No. 2. Petition allowed in part.