J.K. Biswas, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is alleging that his complaint received by the executive officer of Lalgola Panchayat Samity was not considered by that/authority. In the complaint he alleged that to his prejudice certain people (named in the complaint) established a 'Hat'. The question is whether the Petitioner's complaint merited any consideration at all.
(2.) There is nothing to show that he obtained a licence under Sec. 117 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 for establishing the Hat that he claims that he has been running from the place mentioned in the document at page 11. It is a licence granted to him by the Lalbagh Regulated Market Committee under provisions of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972. Curiously it was granted permitting him to set up a Hat: "Agril. Produce Cattle Hat". It is not known how cattle could be described as agricultural produce. Be that as it may, the licence was not one granted by the Panchayat Samity, and hence it incurred no obligation to consider the complaint in question for any purpose whatsoever.
(3.) Counsel submits that the Panchayat Samity has been collecting licence fee from the Petitioner for permitting him to run the Hat., From the document at page 14, I find that the Panchayat Samity granted licence under Sec. 116 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, and that it collected fee only for that licence. Under Sec. 116 any trade or business declared under its Sub -section (1) to be offensive or dangerous cannot be carried on by anyone without obtaining a licence from the Panchayat Samity. And such a licence was only obtained by the Petitioner for carrying on a trade or business dealing in cattle.;