Bombay High Court
Rajkamal Tourist Complex Private ... vs The Collector Nagpur City Nagpur ... on 5 May, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp2647.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2016
1. Rajkamal Tourist Complex Private Limited
through its Director Shri Mahipal s/o
Natthusao Chowksey, aged 60 yrs.,
Occp. Business, having its office at
1st floor Surya Kiran VNIT square,
Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Mahipal s/o Natthusao Chowksey,
aged 60 yrs., Occp. Business, having its office at
1st floor Surya Kiran VNIT square, Bajaj Nagar,
Nagpur. :: .... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1. The Collector,
Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2. The Superintendent of State Excise,
Collectorate Compound, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, The Revenue & Forest Deptt.,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
4. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director, having its office at
CDO Hutments, LIC Building, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400 020.:: .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri P. P. Kothari, Advocate for Petitioners.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 05 MAY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
wp2647.16.odt 2/4
Notice.
Shri V. P. Maldhure, learned A.G.P. waives service for
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri S. G. Jagtap, learned Counsel
waives service for respondent No.4.
Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order
dated 25/4/2016 has been passed during the time when the
provisional FL-III license granted to the petitioner was in operation
and has been passed suddenly without giving any opportunity of
making his submissions before the respondent No.1. The petitioner
also submits that without any prejudice to his rights to dispute the
ownership of the Forest Department, some time should have been
granted to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the
Forest Department for obtaining no objection certificate.
Learned A.G.P. submits that the impugned order has been
passed at the time of renewal of license and there is no requirement of
law that hearing should be taken.
Learned A.G.P. could be right in his submission. But, the
impugned order has been passed not only at the time of consideration
of the main application of the petitioner for renewal of license but also
wp2647.16.odt 3/4
at the time when the provisional license was valid and operative. The
impugned order has the effect of withdrawing the provisional license
granted to the petitioner and thus adversely affects valuable civil right
accrued to him under the provisional license. Therefore, according to
the learned Counsel for the petitioner, granting of reasonable time to
enable the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from the
concerned Department was necessary. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has also filed civil suit disputing
the decision of the Collector that the land on which the holiday resort
of the petitioner stands belongs to the Forest Department. According to
him, the ownership of the Forest Department has also been disputed by
respondent No.4-M.T.D.C.
In this petition, we are not concerned with the ownership
issue and our concern is confined to the prejudice caused to the
petitioner by withdrawing the provisional license issued to him and
that too on a ground, which on the face of it, appears unjust and
unreasonable. Unless sufficient time and opportunity are given to the
petitioner for obtaining the no objection certificate, such an order
could not have been passed. In this view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and it
must go.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
wp2647.16.odt 4/4
The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
FL-III license, provisionally granted to the petitioner shall
be continued for reasonable period of time, which, in my
opinion, could be up to 13/6/2016. Meanwhile, the
petitioner, if he so desires, may apply to the Forest
Department, which application could be made without
prejudice to all the rights of the petitioner, for obtaining
necessary no objection certificate. If, such an application
is made, same shall be decided within fifteen days from
the date of the application by the Forest Department.
If any seals are placed over the permit rooms and
stores, same shall be removed by respondent No.2.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
Authenticated copy of the order be furnished to both the
sides.
JUDGE
wwl
