Bombay High Court
Mr. Mohanshyam Omprakash Mangla vs Thane Municipal Corporation And ... on 7 November, 2017
Bench: Vasanti A. Naik
Sudhir Rane 1 12-WP-7589-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7589 OF 2017
Mr. Mohanshyam Omprakash Mangla ... Petitioner.
Versus
The Thane Municipal Corporation
and others ... Respondents.
....
Mr. R.D. Soni a/w Mr. Sanjay Gawade and Mr. Ajay Sharma i/b.
Shree & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Ajit Ram Pitale for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.5-State.
....
CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.
DATE : 7th November, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the action on
the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 of sealing his hotel "Mumbai
Palace Restaurant and Bar" on 03.12.2016.
Interalia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside as no opportunity
whatsoever was granted to the petitioner before the petitioners
Sudhir Rane 2 12-WP-7589-2017.doc
restaurant and bar was sealed on 03.12.2016. It is stated that the
action of sealing or closing the restaurant and bar could have been
undertaken by the corporation only after granting an opportunity
to the petitioner. It is stated that for the first time, it is stated in
the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents that since
the fire safety norms were not adhered to by the petitioner while
running restaurant and certain other irregularities were also
committed while running the restaurant and bar, the action of
sealing the restaurant was undertaken.
Mr. Apte, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that the petitioner was served with a
notice in the year 2014 for the inspection of the restaurant with a
view to see whether the fire safety norms were adhered to. It is
stated that after inspecting the restaurant and the premises a
report was prepared by the concerned authority. It is stated that
it is apparent from the report that the petitioner had violated the
fire safety norms. It is stated that certain other illegalities were
also committed by the petitioner while running the restaurant and
bar. It is further stated that a notice for compliance of the safety
norms was served on the petitioner but the petitioner did not do
the needful. It is however fairly stated that before sealing the
restaurant and bar of the petitioner, no notice was served on the
petitioner, asking him to show cause as to why the restaurant and
bar should not be sealed.
It is apparent from the submissions made on behalf of
the parties that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had not afforded any
opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner before taking the action
Sudhir Rane 3 12-WP-7589-2017.doc
of sealing his restaurant on 03.12.2016. Before taking the drastic
action of sealing the restaurant and bar that is operated by the
petitioner on the basis of the license issued by the respondent
authorities, it was necessary for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to
grant an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. Since the
impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice, the
same needs to be declared as illegal.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. It is hereby declared that the action of the respondent
Nos.1 to 4 of sealing the restaurant and bar of the petitioner
without affording the opportunity to him, is bad in law. The
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to remove the seal on the
restaurant and bar of the petitioner within two days. It would be
open for the Corporation to take appropriate action against the
petitioner, as is permissible in law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(Riyaz I. Chagla J) (Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J)
