WP(C) 5018/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr S Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr S Samaria, learne d Standing Counsel, GMC and Mr B Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5/ caveator. The caveat is discharged. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by th e Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation by which the trade licence granted to the petitioner for running the business of Bar cum-- Restaurant has been ca ncelled. A reading of the order dated 14.9.2007 would go to show that three prima ry grounds have been assigned for the cancellation made. Firstly, it has been re corded that the trade licence of the petitioner has not been renewed. Secondly, it is recorded that the petitioner does not have the renewed tenancy agreement w ith the landlord on whose premises the business is being carried out. Thirdly, i t has been recorded that there are public complaints regarding commission of nui sance and anti social activities in the business premises run by the petitioner. In so far as the first ground of cancellation is concerned, the Court mu st take note of the fact that if the trade licence has not been renewed, the can cellation of a non-existent licence will hardly be necessary. In so far as the second ground is concerned, no provision of the Act or the bye laws have been p laced before the Court empowering any authority under the Act to take into accou nt the terms of a tenancy while granting or renewing a trade licence. In so far as the third ground for the impugned cancellation is concerned , admittedly, the petitioner was not heard prior to the order passed. Neither wa s any show cause notice proposing cancellation of the trade licence was issued t o the petitioner prior to the impugned action. In the above view of the matter and having regard to the provisions cont ained in Section 378 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, the Court i s of the view that without foreclosing any of the other issues arising in the wr it petition as noticed above, the order dated 14.9.2007, should be interfered wi th, with liberty to the authorities of the Corporation to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly. This disposes of the writ petition.