Allowed

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jun 2014WP/11309/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the permanent cancellation of an eating house licence. The High Court dismissed the impugned order due to a gross breach of natural justice, as the show cause notice lacked specified grounds and did not provide a reasonable opportunity to submit a reply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of cancellation of the eating house licence of the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

29-wp-11309-13

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 11309 of 2013.

¶6

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub … Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra … Respondent.

¶7

Mr Ganesh Gole for the petitioner Mr V. S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 25^th June 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned

¶11

AGP appearing for the Respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the present Petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶12

By the impugned order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Tahsildar,

¶13

the Eating House licence granted to the Petitioner has been permanently cancelled.

¶14

A show cause notice dated 14th February, 2013 was served to the Petitioner calling upon her to remain present for hearing on 25 th February, 2013 along with documents. Though the show cause notice mentions that the licence granted to the Petitioner is liable to be cancelled, the grounds on which the licence was proposed to be cancelled, were not incorporated in the said show cause notice. Exhibit “F” to the Petition shows that on 25th February, 2013, the Petitioner appeared through an Advocate and time was sought by her on the ground that the documents were not available and,

1 of 3

29-wp-11309-13

therefore, reply could not be filed. On 25th February,2013 itself, the Tahsildar

¶19

appears to have made an entry in the Roznama stating that one Nishar Ahmad Yakub remained present and submitted written submissions along with the evidence. After referring to the Report of the Inspector of Police, the Tahsildar has recorded that eating house licence of the Petitioner has been cancelled. Moreover, we find that the reasoned order has been passed on 6th March, 2013.

¶20

Thus, it follows that the impugned action is illegal, inasmuch as in the show cause notice, grounds on which licence was proposed to be cancelled were not set out. Moreover, even a reasonable opportunity was not granted to the Petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice and to produce documents.

¶21

Only on the ground of the gross breach of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(A) The impugned order of cancellation of licence of the Petitioner is quashed and set aside;

¶24

(B) We, however, make it clear that it will be open for the Respondent to initiate an appropriate action for cancellation of the licence of the Petitioner, in accordance with law;

2 of 3

29-wp-11309-13

(C) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the merits of the case made out by the Respondent for cancellation of licence of the Petitioner and all contentions in that behalf are kept

¶29

open;

¶30

(D) The Petition is allowed on above terms.

¶31

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶32

3 of 3

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Baby Sapura Yakub Mhaldar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

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

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Rajaram Taware Vs the Bhiwandi Nijampur City Municipal Corporation, Islampura and Anr.

The Mayani Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Mayani, through Mr. Prakash Ganpati Chothe Vs the Judge of the Co-Operative Court, Satara and Ors.

Ramchandra Baburao Kachare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Darode Jog Kulkarni Venture, through Mr. Sudhir Darode and Mr. Anand Jog Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ors.