Bombay High Court
Nilesh S/O Janardhan Dhongale vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 23 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 judg. wp 2725.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2725/2015
Nilesh s/o Janardhan Dhongale,
Aged about 36 years, Occ.-Business,
R/o.-Near Kala Morti Mandir, Ranpise Nagar,
Akola, Tah. and District Akola. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1] State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Municipal Corporation, Akola
through its Commissioner,
Office of Municipal Corporation, Akola. R
ESPONDENTS
Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
Dated : 23
rd September, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent
of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, Akola, dated 21-02-2015 directing the petitioner to close down
the Beer shop within three days or else the Beer shop would be sealed.
2 judg. wp 2725.15.odt
Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite the fact
that the Corporation had granted permission to the petitioner to operate the
Beer shop in the premises for which the license was granted, without serving
the notice on the petitioner and without granting any opportunity, whatsoever
to him, the respondents have directed the petitioner to close the Beer shop
within three days or else the same would be sealed.
Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2-Corporation
states that sale of Beer from the premises that was allotted to the petitioner
by the Corporation is not permissible in view of the Clause 12 of the
agreement of allotment. It is stated that since there is a breach of the
condition of the agreement for allotment, the respondent no.2-Corporation
had rightly directed the petitioner to close down the Beer shop within three
days.
We find that the impugned order is passed without affording an
opportunity to the petitioner. Despite the existence of Clause 12 in the
agreement of allotment, the petitioner was permitted by the Corporation to
operate the Beer shop from the premises. If that is so, it was necessary for the
Corporation to have at least served a notice on the petitioner before directing
the petitioner to close the Beer shop within three days. We find that the
action on the part of the respondent no.2-Corporation is extremely high
handed and the impugned order is passed without granting any opportunity to
the petitioner. Since the Corporation had granted permission to the petitioner
to operate the Beer shop from the premises, it was necessary for the
3 judg. wp 2725.15.odt
Corporation to serve the notice on the petitioner if the Corporation was of the
view that the petitioner could not sell the Beer from the premises allotted to
him by the Corporation.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2-Corporation
would be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance
with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
4 judg. wp 2725.15.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 : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 27/09/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
