JUDGMENT : I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. Paris Bar and Restaurant is situated on the ground floor of premises No. 6A, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road Kolkata-13. It is a proprietorship business owned by Harvinder Singh, the writ petitioner. The property tax documents issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, annexed to the petition reveal that the owner of the premises is the Corporation and that its lessee is Murlimal Santaram & Co., the fifth respondent also of 6A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-13. The owner of this business is one V.L. Jayakar. The writ petitioner is a sub-lessee. 2. Now, allegedly the lease between the Corporation and the fifth respondent /Jayakar expired by efflux of time. The Corporation has instituted a suit for eviction of the lessee and for obtaining vacant possession of the property. The suit is still pending. 3. The problem in this case arises in this way. 4. The writ petitioner had a certificate of enlistment issued to him under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. It was renewed only upto 31st March, 2013. Although it is averred in the petition that right from the time of its expiry, the petitioner made efforts to renew it, unfortunately, the records do not say so. On 26th September, 2013, he wrote a letter to the Corporation only to issue a “Demand Notice of Trade Licence for the year 2013-2014” (annexure P3 page 48 of the petition). Then, after nearly two years, on 4th August, 2015 his advocates wrote to the licence officer of the Corporation to renew the enlistment certificate. 5. Complaining that the Corporation had wrongfully not renewed this enlistment certificate, the writ petitioner, filed a writ application in this court (W.P. No. 20636 (W) of 2015, Harvinder Singh v. KMC). On 18th May, 2016 this court disposed of it by directing the Corporation to consider renewal of his enlistment certificate by a reasoned order. 6. The impugned order was made by the Chief Manager (Licence) on 1st August, 2016. It recorded the following : “A certificate of enlistment, issued in favour of the writ petitioner was renewed upto 2012-2013. The Corporation took the stand before the adjudicator that the head lease in favour of Murlimal Santaram & Co. had expired. It had filed a suit to recover possession of the demised premises. Furthermore, it had issued notice to the occupiers stating that it did not consider them as lawful. The Corporation took the stand before the adjudicator that the head lease in favour of Murlimal Santaram & Co. had expired. It had filed a suit to recover possession of the demised premises. Furthermore, it had issued notice to the occupiers stating that it did not consider them as lawful. Since the writ petitioner was a sub-tenant, according to the Corporation, his occupation was not lawful.” 7. The Chief Manager (Licence) came to the following findings :- “(a) As already stated by the officials/staff of KMC present in the hearing that the main crux of the problem lies in the fact that the premises no. 6A, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road, Kolkata-700013., where M/s. Paris Bar & Restaurant is situated is a KMC property and KMC does not recognize tenants and occupants of this premises as lawful tenant/lessee. This contention is accepted. So, in the matter of production of proof of occupancy, the businesses/trades at that particular premise suffer and hence it will be difficult for Licence Department, KMC to process the case. (b) Over and above, as stated herein above, till the dispute of occupancy at the said premises is getting settled either by some executive order or by some order of the competent Court of Law, there is embargo upon Licence Department to process those cases. Hence, it will not be prudent on the part of Licence Deptt. KMC to proceed any further in this matter and to respect and follow the above contentions of the officials of KMC, present in this hearing. (c) However, since in the Licence database, the name of Mr. Harvinder Singh, proprietor of M/s. Paris Bar & Restaurant at the above stated address is found to be mentioned and the C.E. has been renewed upto 2012-2013, hence Mr. Harvinder Singh is liable to produce all updated necessary papers/documents including statutory clearances as may be required to run a “ Restaurant-cum Bar”, so that the case can be processed as soon as the problem stated at point (b) above gets resolved.” 8. Mr. Bachawat, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner laid stress on the fact that there was an enlistment certificate in favour of the petitioner. Since there was no change in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, as a matter of course was entitled to its renewal. Mr. Bachawat, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner laid stress on the fact that there was an enlistment certificate in favour of the petitioner. Since there was no change in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, as a matter of course was entitled to its renewal. He said that in the matter of consideration for renewal of an enlistment certificate, the Corporation could not investigate the title of the petitioner in the premises from which he was doing business. It was not a valid consideration at all. He cited two authorities Abdul Rashid v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 Cal 234 and The Chairman, Khardah Municipality & Anr. v. M/s. Annapuran Bakery & Anr. reported in CAL LT 1997 (1) HC 32. He submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the Corporation be directed to immediately renew the enlistment certificate in favour of the petitioner. 9. Appearing for the Corporation Mr. Ghosh, submitted that the petitioner had not even made a proper application under Section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980, for renewal of the licence. The documents that had been appended to the writ petition were for other purposes. He said that the application for grant or renewal of trade licence could not be considered in isolation. The restaurant needed permissions under Section 421 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980. Furthermore, licences were required from various authorities like police, fire and excise. An amusement licence was also required. The petitioner had not produced any of these licences. The earlier enlistment licence had expired on 31st March, 2013. The petitioner was carrying on the business of running a bar and restaurant illegally. 10. He submitted that this writ application should be dismissed. 11. First of all, I set out Section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980. “199. The petitioner had not produced any of these licences. The earlier enlistment licence had expired on 31st March, 2013. The petitioner was carrying on the business of running a bar and restaurant illegally. 10. He submitted that this writ application should be dismissed. 11. First of all, I set out Section 199 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980. “199. Certificate of enlistment for profession, trade and calling:- [(1) Every person engaged or intending to be engaged in any profession, trade or calling in Kolkata as mentioned in Schedule IV, either by himself or by an agent or representative, shall obtain a certificate of enlistment or get the same renewed annually, as the case may be, from the Municipal Commissioner upon presentation of an application in such form as may be specified by the Municipal Commissioner together with such application fee, 3 [not exceeding rupees two thousand and five hundred, as may be determined by the Corporation under sub-section (3) of section 131.]. Such application form shall be available from the Corporation on payment of such fee as may be determined by the Municipal Commissioner: (2) The Municipal Commissioner shall, after making such enquiry as may be necessary and within thirty days of the receipt of the application, grant him such certificate if the application is in order, or shall reject the application if it is not in order.] [Provided that no profession, trade or calling, referred to in sub-section (1), shall be commenced or carried on without any licence or permission, as required under this Act, being taken out and produced before the Municipal Commissioner, failing which the certificate of enlistment shall not be renewed].” 12. The requirements of the section are these. If a person wants to be engaged in any trade as mentioned in the Act he has to obtain a certificate of enlistment and to have the same renewed from time to time, from the Municipal Commissioner. This certificate is obtainable upon submission of an application in a proper form. This section conceptualises enlistment of a trader and not the particular place from which such trade may be carried out. The trader may well be itinerant or peripatetic, that is one who moves from place to place or he may be a trader operating from a place of business. This is supported by authorities. In Abdul Rashid v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. The trader may well be itinerant or peripatetic, that is one who moves from place to place or he may be a trader operating from a place of business. This is supported by authorities. In Abdul Rashid v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 1991 Cal 234 a division bench of this court, recognised carrying on business by a person “without any place of business”. Mr. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee said : “As we have already indicated, we are of the view, place or no place, if one is a businessman carrying on business within the limits of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, he acquires a right to a certificate of enlistment under Section 200 and incurs a liability to pay tax and the Corporation has no right to refuse the certificate or the tax. The learned trial Judge has nowhere held that the petitioner does not carry on the business of motor repair and all that he has held is that the petitioner has failed to prove that he does so at the premises in question.” 13. This division bench judgment followed Corporation of Calcutta v. Sumenia Bewa reported in 35 CWN 831 and Venode Kumar Jalan v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in 1987 (1) CLT 333. The same view was taken by this court subsequently in USG Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Anr. reported in CAL LT 1994 (2) HC 160. In The Chairman, Khardah Municipality & Anr. v. M/s. Annapuran Bakery & Anr. reported in CAL LT 1997 (1) HC 32 Mr. Justice Satyabrata Sinha speaking for a division bench of this court said : “17. Grant of certificate of enlistment does not decide any question of title. Such a question of title has to be raised before the appropriate forum and grant of such certificate would not have any value in a proceeding requiring adjudication on the question of title. Proviso appended to section 118 clearly states that such enlistment would not absolve such person from any liability to take out licence under the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. 18. Section 118 merely requires a person to obtain a certificate of enlistment before he can carry on business.” 14. Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta in All Bengal Rickshaw Union & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 18. Section 118 merely requires a person to obtain a certificate of enlistment before he can carry on business.” 14. Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta in All Bengal Rickshaw Union & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2008 (1) CHN 44 remarked that no extraneous consideration could be made in granting a certificate of enlistment. Consideration could only be made of the conditions mentioned in Section 199 and 200 of the said Act. 15. I will not hesitate to add to avoid any misinterpretation of the law that the Corporation or a Municipal authority should not call upon an applicant trader for an enlistment certificate under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 to prove his title to a property, or the existence of a tenancy in his favour and so on. Furthermore, a trader may trade from place of business or be itinerant or peripatetic. 16. However, whenever the nature of the trade or business demands that it should be carried out from a place of business, the trader should possess such a place to the satisfaction of the Municipal authority. Otherwise, you will have shopkeepers setting up shops in the middle of the road and asking for an enlistment certificate. The law is that if a trader has a settled place of business the municipal authority will not enquire into any dispute with regard to the property, and enlist him as a trader. Similarly, the municipal authority is entitled to be satisfied about the identity and residential address of a mobile trader, without asking him to establish his title. 17. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that any dispute between a lessor and lessee with regard to determination of a lease or the right of a lessee or sub-lesse to continue in possession is wholly immaterial in the consideration for grant of a certificate of enlistment. Hence, it is quite plain that the demand of the Corporation upon the fifth respondent to vacate the subject premises and their filing of a suit for this purpose was an extraneous consideration that the Corporation took into account in not renewing the enlistment certificate of the petitioner, a sub-lessee of that respondent. In my opinion the Corporation has proceeded on an erroneous conception of the law, in passing the impugned order. 18. Moreover, the petitioner has been carrying on business for a considerable period of time from the self-same premises. In my opinion the Corporation has proceeded on an erroneous conception of the law, in passing the impugned order. 18. Moreover, the petitioner has been carrying on business for a considerable period of time from the self-same premises. 19. I entirely agree with Mr. Ghosh that the petitioner has not disclosed any proper application for renewal of the licence after its expiry on 31st March, 2013. He wrote to the Corporation on 4th August, 2015 through a lawyer (annexure P4 page 49 of the petition). Even that letter did not mention any application for renewal having been made. The contention in that letter that the renewal of the licence was automatic was incorrect. Section 199 specifically states that the holder of a licence is to “get the same renewed annually”. Renewal could be made only on an application which the petitioner did not make. 20. Therefore there is no doubt that there was considerable lapse on the part of the petitioner. 21. The second part of the impugned order that the petitioner had to produce other licences and clearances to obtain renewal of the certificate of enlistment is also not correct. Grant of a certificate of enlistment is not a condition precedent to obtaining a licence under Section 421 or vice versa. Unless grant of another licence or approval etc. is made a condition precedent to issuance of a particular licence an authority cannot make such a demand because that would be extraneous. 22. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is directed to make an application for issuance of a certificate of enlistment within one month from date. The Corporation has to issue a certificate of enlistment within a month of receiving this application. It is upto it whether to renew it from the date of its expiry or issue a fresh certificate of enlistment. 23. I also make it clear that the writ petitioner is obliged to obtain all the necessary permissions, clearances and approvals etc. from the government or statutory authorities to enable it to run the business of bar and restaurant in accordance with law. In the absence of statutory clearances the Kolkata Municipal Corporation will be free to take whatever steps that are required to be taken in accordance with law. 24. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the above extent. 25. from the government or statutory authorities to enable it to run the business of bar and restaurant in accordance with law. In the absence of statutory clearances the Kolkata Municipal Corporation will be free to take whatever steps that are required to be taken in accordance with law. 24. This writ application is accordingly allowed to the above extent. 25. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.