Quashed

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso. Chikhli Thr. President Prakash N Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2012WP/353/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of premises licence. Court quashed revisional order for non-recording of reasons and directed authority to reconsider on merits after affording hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order passed by respondent No.2 dated 25th June, 2012; directed respondent No.2 to reconsider revision application on merits after hearing petitioner and record reasons.

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp353.12.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2012.

¶5

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Association, Chikhali, bearing Registration No. 391/2007/ Buldana, through its President, Shri Prakash Nimbaji Jadhav, aged about 54 years, R/o. Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, District : Buldhana.

¶6

…. PETITIONER.

¶7

…..VERSUS.....

¶8

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶9

District Magistrate & Collector, Buldana.

¶10

Tahsildar & Taluka Magistrate, Chikhali, District : Buldana.

¶11

…. RESPONDENTS.

¶12

_____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.J.Thakkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. S.S.Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents.

¶13

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2012.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

Heard.

¶16

ADMIT .

¶17

wp353.12.odt

¶18

¶19

Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

¶20

Respondent No.3 is Tahsildar, Chikhali of District : Buldana. That the applicant feels aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.3 and confirmed by respondent No.2. The order passed by respondent No.3 directs cancellation of licence of the petitioner issued under the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960. The said order was sought to be revised before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 while passing revisional order has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3.

¶21

Learned counsel Mr. Thakkar has submitted that there was a minor violation of conditions imposed on the petitioner for running club only. It is submitted that a single incident of violation of the licencing condition shall not entail a severe penalty of cancellation of licence. It is submitted that the Licencing Authority could have suspended the licence for a certain period by way of reasonable penalty. It is submitted that the order is arbitrary and appears to be totally unreasonable.

¶22

I have gone through the impugned order passed by respondent No.3. Though the order is quite lengthy, the fact remains that it pertains to violation of conditions of licence on a particular date. What is pertinent to

¶23

wp353.12.odt

¶24

¶25

note is that the revisional authority, while entertaining the revision of the petitioner, has reproduced the facts containing the allegations made against the petitioner. However, the revisional authority i.e. District Magistrate has not recorded any reason as to why he was satisfied with the order passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.2, in fact, was under obligation to examine the order of respondent No.3 objectively and to decide whether the alleged violation of licencing condition was so serious that respondent No.3 should go to the extent of cancelling the licence.

¶26

In view thereof, in my opinion the order passed by respondent No.2 will have to be set aside and respondent No.2 will have to be directed to reconsider the revision application on merits and examine the order of respondent No.3 as to whether the same is sustainable or not. Respondent No.2 shall give hearing to the petitioner before deciding the revision application. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶27

i) The order passed by respondent No.2 dated 25^th June, 2012 is set aside.

¶28

ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the revision application of the petitioner on merits and give fresh hearing to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall record his reasons for accepting or setting aside the order of respondent No.3.

¶29

wp353.12.odt

¶30

¶31

iii) The revision application shall be decided within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order.

¶32

iv) This order shall be communicated to respondent No.2 by the petitioner.

¶33

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Steno copy be provided to the petitioner for communicating the order to respondent No.2.

¶35

JUDGE.

¶36

RRaut..

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso. Chikhli Thr. President Prakash N Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdamba Krida Va Shaikshanik Social Welfare Asso. Chikhli Thr. President Prakash N Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Ministry of Home Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govinda S/O Sitaram Gharpende Vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Kalamna Nagpur

Shrichand S/O Mohanlal Setiya Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Bramhapuri

Moreshwar S/O Pandhari Misar Vs State of Maharshtra through Pso Brahmpuri

Atique Mohammad Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso , Wadgaon Road Ps Yavatmal

Jagdish @ Jagya Wasudeo Lanjewar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Commissioner of Police and Others

Vilas S/O Pundlikrao Kahale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Pso, Ps Ghugus Distt Chandrapur