The Gauhati High Court has held that a municipality may insist upon a written agreement from the owner of the premises as a condition precedent for the renewal of a trade licence when the applicant is a tenant, and may refuse renewal in the absence of such consent. The observation was made by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi while disposing of a writ petition filed by Nand Kishore Mundhra challenging the order of the Jorhat Municipal Board cancelling his trade licence.
The petitioner had been inducted as a tenant of one room in 2016, from where he commenced a business under a trade licence issued by the Municipal Board. The licence had been renewed periodically and remained valid until March 30, 2025. The petitioner applied for renewal on March 31, 2025, but the Municipal Board refused to renew the licence, citing the absence of consent from the owner of the premises.
The Court noted that a dispute regarding the tenancy had arisen, which was evidenced by the filing of a Miscellaneous Case in 2024. The landlord had contested the proceedings by filing an affidavit opposing the renewal of the licence. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was based on a forensic report that had not been furnished to him, and argued that such a report could not be relied upon without judicial endorsement.
The Municipal Board, in its defence, submitted that a written agreement from the owner was an essential condition for the issuance or renewal of a trade licence in cases where the applicant is a tenant, and that its decision was based on relevant considerations.
The High Court framed the issue as whether the Municipal Board could refuse renewal of the trade licence in the absence of the owner's consent. It observed that though much emphasis had been placed by the petitioner on the non-furnishing of the forensic report, the Court was of the prima facie opinion that, even setting aside the report, the Municipal Board could not be faulted for refusing to renew the licence when an objection had been raised by the landlord and the petitioner was occupying the premises as a tenant without the owner's consent for renewal.
Referring to its earlier decision, the Court reiterated that the conditions precedent for the renewal of a trade licence include an agreement in cases where the applicant is a tenant, and that such a condition may be insisted upon by a municipal authority.
On the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, the Court held that the petitioner had been granted an adequate opportunity to be heard, noting that notice had been issued both under the order of the Court and subsequently, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled. The Court added that while natural justice is an important aspect of judicial dispensation, it cannot be elevated to the status of an unruly horse and may, in specific cases, amount to a useless formality if pressed beyond reason.
Regarding the scope of certiorari jurisdiction, the Court observed that in exercising such jurisdiction, it examines the decision-making process to determine whether relevant factors were considered or whether the decision was based on extraneous considerations or vitiated by mala fide. The Court found that the order of the Jorhat Municipal Board cancelling the petitioner's trade licence clearly appeared to be based on relevant factors, and therefore declined to delve into the objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 233 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The case is titled WP(C) No. 1173 of 2026, Nand Kishore Mundhra v. State of Assam and Others.