Dismissed

Prakash Mohanlal Advani v. the Collector of Sangli and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/6866/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition for cancelling an FL III licence was dismissed because the ground of wrong address was cured by a subsequent alteration. Liberty to file a fresh petition regarding the address change was denied.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the change of address was not granted; jurisdiction transferred to authorities for illegality.

Prakash Mohanlal Advani Vs the Collector of Sangli… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-6866.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6866 OF 2013

¶6

Prakash Mohanlal Advani … Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Collector of Sangli and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Vishal Thadhani i/by Mrs. Veena Thadhani, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel, for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶12

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 3^rd JULY, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶16

the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for cancellation of FL III licence granted to the second respondent. The cancellation is sought on the ground that the Eating House Registration Certificate/ licence granted to the second respondent is at one address whereas the address disclosed in the FL III Licence is different. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record a compilation which shows that now the address on the Eating House Registration Certificate/licence granted to the second respondent has

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

2 wp-6866.13

¶19

been altered. Therefore, now the address on the Eating House Licence and the FL III licence is the same. Therefore, the basis on which the Petition is filed does not survive.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to file a fresh Petition for challenging the change of address on the licence. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner is the landlord of the second respondent and the suit for eviction filed by the petitioner is pending. Considering these aspects, we are not inclined to grant liberty to file a fresh Petition. However, if any illegality has been committed by any of the authorities, it is for the petitioner to invite the attention of the concerned authorities to the said illegality.

¶21

2 of 2

Prakash Mohanlal Advani v. the Collector of Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Mohanlal Advani v. the Collector of Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Salim Mohammed Shaikh Vs the Collector of Satara and Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, through Legal Officer, Shri. Arvind Mahadeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Co-Op. and Textile Dept and Ors.

Sou. Sumitra Sumit Patole Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.

Murali Rahdomal Khubhchandani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Public Works Dept, Kollhapur and Ors.

M/S. Vitthal Refined Sugar Ltd. Vs District Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Mrs. Yashoda Rajendra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Social Justice and Special Assistance and Ors.