Quashed

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Mar 2013WP/1379/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order permanently canceling the petitioner's eating house licence passed by the Collector without a hearing. The court noted a compromise between parties regarding the premises and directed a rehearing before the Collector to decide on the licence's continuance or cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order canceling the eating house license is quashed and parties are relegated before the Collector to decide the matter after a hearing.

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 1379.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2013

¶5

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja V/s The State of Mah. & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 12/03/2013

¶7

Mr. Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shelke, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. A.H.Kasliwal, Advocate for Resp. No. 4.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The petitioner impugns the Order dated 24/01/2013 passed by the Collector, Parbhani [ For short, ‘ Collector ’ ], thereby canceling the eating house licence of the petitioner permanently.

¶10

Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compromise has been entered into between the parties in F.A. No. 457 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court on 13/02/2013 has disposed of said First Appeal in terms of the compromise. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed by the authority without hearing

¶11

2 W.P. 1379.2013

¶12

the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the compromise is not in respect of the whole property, wherein the hotel is situated but only part of it and the petitioner has an alternate remedy of Appeal.

¶14

The compromise between the parties is subsequent to the order passed on 24/01/2013. The respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit in reply in the present Writ Petition stating about the compromise. He also accepts that no notice was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Considering the above conspectus of the matter, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the Collector.

¶15

In the result, I pass the following order :

¶16

The impugned order passed by the Collector dated 24/01/2013 permanently canceling the eating house licence of the petitioner is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the Collector.

¶17

The Collector shall decide the fact about the continuance of the licence/cancellation of the licence after hearing the party concerned. All points are kept open.

¶18

The parties shall appear before the Collector on 20/03/2013.

¶19

3 W.P. 1379.2013

¶20

The Collector shall decide the proceedings expeditiously.

¶21

The Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶23

KNP/W.P. 1379.2013

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Punja Trambak Patil and Others Vs Samadhan Chindh Patil

Vijaysing Bhuta Girase Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Indrasinh Shankarsinh Girase Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Anil Atmaram Shinde Vs the District Appropriate Authority and District Civil Surgeon, Jalna and Others

Shaikh Kathumiyan Banemiyan Vs Kisan Deorao Pawar Gpa Gangadhar Kondiram Kate

Rangnath Chimaji Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Mah