Disposed

Anil G. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2012CAW/895/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Respondent-Municipal Corporation to provisionally renew and keep renewing the Applicant's trade license under relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, preventing deprivation of livelihood without demanding a change of user certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation to forthwith provisionally renew and keep renewing applicant's trade license under Section 394 without insisting on a certificate for change of user.

Anil G. Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

CAW-895-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.895 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5750 OF 1998

¶5

Anil G. Shah … Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.G. Shah, the Applicant-in-person, present.

¶7

Mr. Sameer Patil, A.G.P., for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 8 TH MAY, 2012.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Mr. Shah, the Applicant-in-person, states that in spite of notice to the Advocate for the Respondent-Municipal Corporation, none appears for the Respondent-Municipal Corporation. Mr. Shah, the Applicant-in-person, points out that he was running a restaurant in a structure which is designated as shop, which, according to him, is permissible. However, under the new development plan, the area has been shown as an existing garden. On the basis of such a reservation, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has withdrawn the trade

1/3

Dixit

CAW-895-12

license issued to the Applicant for running a restaurant. Mr. Shah, the Applicantin-person, relies on the letter dated 10^th June, 2006, issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, which is at Exhibit “F” to the Petition, where the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has stated in para 2 as follows :

¶16

“(2).Draft Revised Development Plan (1984):-

¶17

As per Draft Revised Development Plan of K-West Ward, published by M.C.G.M. in the year 1984, the land under reference was not reserved for any Public Purpose except for widening if any of the existing road. It is situated in a Residential Zone ® and its abuts the designation of “Dispensary”. ”

¶18

The letter further shows that the Commencement Certificate and the Occupation Certificate for the building in question were issued in the year 1986, when the land under reference was not reserved for any public purpose. Para 5 of

¶19

the letter reads as follows :

¶20

“5. Site Conditions :-

¶21

The Land under the entire designation of “15% Recreation Ground” Clamped on CTS No.347, 423, 424, 425 of village Juhu is mostly occupied by the existing multistoried buildings and structures. Further the building under reference is existing on site for which IOD was issued on 11.12.1978 and OCC was granted in the year 1986. ”

2/3

Dixit

CAW-895-12

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Applicant should not be deprived of his means of livelihood from the restaurant. We, therefore, direct that the Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation shall forthwith provisionally renew and keep renewing the Applicant's trade license under Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, without insisting that the Applicant should obtain a certificate for change of user. Such renewal shall be provisional and subject to the result of this Writ Petition.

¶26

The Civil Application is disposed of.

¶27

[MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

¶28

3/3

Anil G. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil G. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.v.Pandit Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sardar Tabish S/O. Mukhtar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Ambadas Mahatkar Vs Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Hari Chandru Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Resettlement and Ors.

Shamrao Krishna Bhosale (Since Decd) through Legal Heirs Smt. Bhagirathibai Shamrao Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sarfuddin Abubakar Ismail Contractor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.