Disposed
Haji M.C. Abdul Kadar v. Asst. Municipal Commissioner and Ors. and George David Pereira and Ors.
Bombay HCCHSW/54/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE HIGH
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.54 OF 2009
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2691 OF 2008
Haji M.C. Abdul Kadar
(M/s. Hotel Tourist) ..Applicant.
Vs.
The Assistant Municipal
Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.P.R.Naidu for the Applicant.
Ms.Thadani with Mr.Pradeep J. Ramchandani for the
Petitioner.
Ms.T.R.Puranik for the Respondent - B.M.C.
Mr.S.A.Vichare, Representative of Court Receiver
present.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR,
DATED :2ND MARCH, 2009
P.C. :
This chamber summons has been taken out by the
Applicant to be impleaded in the Writ Petition.
2. The Writ Petition challenges an order of the BMC
cancelling the eating house licence. The
cancellation is on various grounds stated in the
notice dated 20.6.2008 (Exhibit "Q" to the
petition). One of the grounds is that an area in
excess of that in the possession of the Petitioner
is being used for the business. There are also
: 2 :
issues regarding safety.
3. The matter is a little more complicated than a
mere cancellation of the eating house licence. The
Petitioner is the agent of the Court Receiver. The
Court Receiver was appointed in a suit for
partition, filed between the co-owners. The
Petitioner was not a party to the suit. The
Petitioner was in possession of a part of the suit
premises, claiming to have a right therein through
one of the co-owners. As the Petitioner was a
stranger to the suit, his possession was protected.
He however continued only as the agent of the Court
Receiver.
4. In these circumstances, it is necessary in any
event for the Petitioner to implead the Court
Receiver to the Writ Petition. The Petitioner has
no objection to a same. Hence, the Court Receiver
shall be impleaded as Respondent no.3.
5. It is true that the question whether the
Petitioner’s licence should be granted/renewed or
not is a matter between the BMC and the
Petitioner. The Applicant or any other party
claiming a right therein must adopt independent
: 3 :
proceedings against the Petitioner in respect of the
said property. However, the nature of these
allegations in the show cause notice regarding the
Petitioner allegedly using an excess area and as to
the safety of the building are concerned, assistance
from the owners of the properties would necessary to
the Court Receiver in any event.
6. Instead of the owners/Applicants who have
obtained a decree for partition approaching the
Court Receiver each time, it would be convenient to
add the Applicant as a property party.
7. It is clarified that the mere impleading of the
Applicant would not in any manner whatsoever
adversely affect the Petitioner’s right to the
eating house licence. He is impleaded only in the
above peculiar facts. Accordingly, the applicant
shall be impleaded as Respondent no.4.
8. Needless to add, that the pendency of this Writ
Petition would not in any manner affect the other
proceedings pending between the parties.
9. Amendment to be carried out on or before
1.4.2009.
: 4 :
S.o. to 1.4.2009.
Haji M.C. Abdul Kadar
M/s. Hotel Tourist
The Assistant Municipal Commissioner
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court