Bombay High Court
Abdul Raheman S/O. Abdul Abbas ... vs The Commissioner And Regional ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2269.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2269 OF 2016
Abdul Raheman S/o. Abdul Abbas Qureshi,
Proprietor Al-Quresh Kattalkhana, Kidwai
Ward, Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli.
.... PETITIONER.
ig // VERSUS //
1. The Commissioner and Regional Director
of Municipal Administration, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. Municipal Council, Desaiganj, Distt.
Gadchiroli, Through its Chief Officer.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri F.T.Mirza, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.D.Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Judgment 2 wp2269.16.odt
3. The petitioner was granted licence for running a private
slaughter house by the Municipal Council on 2 nd August, 2013 for two years.
The petitioner submitted an application dated 13 th August, 2015 for renewal
of the licence. This application is rejected by the Chief Officer of the
Municipal Council on 17th August, 2015. The order of the Chief Officer was
challenged by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1965"). The respondent No.1-Regional Director
has dismissed the revision application by the impugned order.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
Chief Officer has committed a gross error by rejecting the application
submitted by the petitioner for renewal of licence and the respondent No.1-
Regional Director has also misconstrued the provisions of Section 267 of the
Act of 1965 and the directives incorporated in the notification No.8 issued by
the Government of Maharashtra on 4 th October, 2015. The learned advocate
for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have
made submissions on various points, however, the learned advocates and the
learned A.G.P. do not dispute that the revision under Section 318 of the Act
of 1965 is maintainable against the order passed by the Chief Officer.
5. On examining the impugned order, I find that the respondent
No.1-Regional Director was reeling under the wrong impression that the
Judgment 3 wp2269.16.odt
revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Act of
1965 was not maintainable. The observations of the respondent No.1-
Regional Director on merits of the matter are recorded under the erroneous
presumption that the revision was not maintainable. Otherwise also the
observations on merit are not sustainable as no reasons are recorded by the
Regional Director.
As I propose to remit the matter to the respondent No.1-
Regional Director for consideration afresh, I refrain myself from dealing with
the submissions made by the learned advocates on merits of the matter. In
my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice :
i) The impugned order passed by the Regional Director is
set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Regional Director,
Municipal Administration, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for
deciding the revision filed by the petitioner afresh.
iii) The Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall
consider the submissions made by the petitioner and the
respondent No.2 and decide the revision application on merits.
iv) The petitioner and the respondent No.2 shall appear
before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 22nd August, 2016 at 11.00 a.m.
and abide by the further orders in the matter.
Judgment 4 wp2269.16.odt
v) The revision application shall be disposed by the
Regional Director till 30th September, 2016.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 5 wp2269.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 02.08.2016.
