Allowed

Sitaram Narayan Purusha v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC1 Apr 2013WP/595/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court of Bombay held that an order cancelling a food business license without recorded reasons or findings of breach could not be sustained and quashed it, remanding the matter for a fresh decision after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the license was quashed and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision after a hearing.

Sitaram Narayan Purusha Vs the Municipal Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

17-wp-595-13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.595 OF 2013

¶6

Sitaram N. Purusha Versus

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay

¶8

....Petitioner.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. V.R.Tripathi i/by V.R.Tripathi & Associates, advocates for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S.Pakale with Ms K.H.Mastakar, advocates for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶13

DATED : April 1, 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard Mr. Tripathi, and Mr. Pakale, learned counsel

¶16

appearing for the respective parties.

¶17

2 By the impugned order, petitioner's license to his establishment, for ready-made eatable stored and sale eatable, was revoked/cancelled. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that absolutely, there are no reasons recorded in support of the impugned order. Even there are no findings in the impugned order that, petitioner is conducting activities in breach of the license. In the circumstances, the

Shivgan

17-wp-595-13

impugned order can not be sustained. The matter deserves to be remanded back to the respondent for decision afresh.

¶22

3 In these circumstances, petition is disposed of by passing the following order:

¶23

(i) The impugned order, cancelling license granted to the petitioner for ready-made eatables stored & sales, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner “H/ West” Ward for decision afresh.

¶24

(ii) The Assistant Commissioner “H/West” ward shall decide the question of the alleged breach of terms of the said license by the petitioner, after giving hearing to the petitioner and shall pass speaking order thereon preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

(iii) Petitioner shall remain present before the Assistant Commissioner “H/West” Ward on 8^th April, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. He is also at liberty to file detail reply.

Shivgan

17-wp-595-13

4 Needless to mention that, the said Assistant Commissioner

¶30

shall decide the issue in question, independently on its own merits and

¶31

without being influenced by the earlier order.

¶32

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶33

Shivgan

Sitaram Narayan Purusha v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Narayan Purusha v. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

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

Agre Properties and Services Limited Vs

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Smt. Maltiben Mahendrakumar Shah and Ors. Vs Tolaram Lachhiram Chudiwala and Ors.

Hawaldar Rupai Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bhagwan Shankardas Moorjani Vs the Trishul B Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Santosh Dattaram Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.