Dismissed

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary State Excise Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC22 Mar 2022WP/1610/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claims ownership of premises where Respondent No.5 holds a commercial licence. Court directs Collector to consider objections during licence renewal but leaves substantive rights undecided as order passed without notice to Respondent No.5.

What did the court decide?

Collector to consider objections during licence renewal without recognizing petitioner's substantive right; case disposed without notice to Respondent No.5.

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

2203wp1610.22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1610 OF 2022

¶5

Smt. Sandhya wd/o Chandrabhushan Jaiswal

¶6

State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶7

Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. K.S. Joshi, In-charge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ. DATE : 22 MARCH 2022 P.C. :

¶10

This petition is filed for a direction to the Respondent No.3 Collector that the Respondent No.3 Collector before renewing the licence, if any, in favour of the Respondent No.5 should consider the objections raised by the Petitioner.

¶11

Shri Puranik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that CL III licence granted in favour of the Respondent No.5 was on the condition that for re-locating the shop, the Respondent No.5 should obtain permission for commercial use of the premises (non agricultural purpose). According to the Petitioner,

¶12

2 2203wp1610.22

¶13

the Respondent No.5 has not obtained the same. The claim of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is owner of the property where shop of the Respondent No.5 is located. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that licence of the Respondent No.5 is scheduled to be renewed on 31 March 2022 and if the objections of the Petitioner are not considered, the petition will become infructuous.

¶14

Since the Petitioner has already made a representation to the Respondent No.3 Collector, the Respondent No.3 Collector will consider the same when issue of renewal of licence in favour of Respondent No.5 arises. However, by this direction we deem not to have recognised the right of the Petitioner and we leave it to the Respondent Collector to consider the matter as per law and take appropriate steps. We issue this clarification as this order is passed without notice to the Respondent No.5. Keeping contentions of both parties open, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶16

khj

¶17

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:22.03.2022 18:30

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary State Excise Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary State Excise Dept. Mumbai and Others

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

Wave, a Partnership Firm, Nagpur through Authorized Partner, Kumar S/O Washi Chugani and Others Vs the Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Nagpur and Another

Mauli Dnyaneshwar Gram Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Pratisthan, Jawala, Yavatmal Thr. Secy., a. B. Thakur Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy. Dept., of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Nishant S/O Pandurang Jagre Vs Subhash S/O R. Chaudhari and Another

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary of Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Others

Shreyash S/O Sandip Katole Vs the S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary and Dy. Director, Amravati

Smt. Chhayabai Wd/O Bhimrao Deogade Vs the Union of India, through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and Others