Writ petition challenging rejection of application for Class D fire safety agency license. High Court held order was not erroneous; interference under Article 226 not called for.
Petition rejected as devoid of substance; no interference in the refusal of the license application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp 2917 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2917 OF 2014
Asht Bhuja Nath S/o Mrityunjaya Nath Tripathi VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Joshi AGP for Respondents: Mr.N.B. Patil
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED :24th SEPTEMBER, 2014
P.C. :-
wp 2917 of 2014 -2-
installation of Fire Hydrant System & Sprinkler System, Smoke Detection & Fire Alarm System and Passive Fire Protection cannot be granted.
2. Affidavit in reply has been tendered by respondent. it is recorded in paragraph No.13 of the affidavit in reply thus:-
“ 13. I say and submit that Rule 13 deals with the application to be made for obtaining a license. I say that the Petitioner has not clearly understood the significance of the Rules, especially Rule 13 which has to be read in conjunction with to Rule 12. I say and submit that under the aforesaid rule the Annual turnover and both financial and technical capacity are prescribed taking into consideration the class of the Municipal Authority for which an application is made for granting license.
Fire Fighting System (Water based) Rs.100 lacs
Detection & Fire suppression system Rs. 25 lacs
Passive Fire Protection Rs. 25 lacs
The minimum annual turnover is prescribed considering the minimum experience and capacity of the Agency in terms of financial, manpower and technical capabilities to successfully execute the fire prevention and protection system as per relevant standard specifications of
Bureau of Indian Standards.
wp 2917 of 2014
-3-
3. The petitioner was given an option to renew the application
and request the authorities for consideration of fresh application after removal of deficiencies. However, the petitioner insists for consideration of the application which has been already rejected by the respondent. We do not find that the order issued by the respondent rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner is erroneous or has been issued without application of mind. In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the decision of rejection of the application for issuance of license tendered by the petitioner by the respondent authorities on the ground of deficiencies recorded in the impugned order.
4. The petition is devoid of substance and stands rejected.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd/24.9.14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in the decision of rejection of an application for issuance of a license due to deficiencies recorded in the impugned order.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for a Class D fire safety agency license was erroneous or without application of mind.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to consideration of a fresh application immediate after a previous rejection.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Asht Bhuja Nath S/o Mrityunjaya Nath Tripathi
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
