[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Khalil Ahmed Abdul Gaffar Shaikh And Anr vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:15121
P9.AOST.6311.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.6311 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6312 OF 2026
Khalil Ahmed Abdul Gaffar Shaikh Appellant
.. (Original Plaintiff)
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Respondents
and Anr. .. (Original Defendants)
....................
Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shobhit Shukla,
Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 30, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned.
2. Heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate for Appellant
and Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondent - Corporation.
3. Plaintiff before me runs a juice centre and food stall at south
side of Purnima Nivas Building, Arthur Bandra Road, Colaba which
was allotted to him by Corporation as far back as in the year 1998 with
due.
4. Sanction received from the Municipal Commissioner as
alternate premises for running the trade. Needless to state that Plaintiff
had to apply for all statutory licenses which prima facie on reading of
1 of 5
P9.AOST.6311.2026.doc
the material appended to the Appeal from Order show that the Plaintiff
has obtained the same.
5. Mr. Sakhare draws my attention to Exhibit - F, page No.123
whereby No-Objection for running the trade of snack bar has been
granted by the Municipal Corporation rather the Mumbai Fire Brigade
on satisfactory compliances of several requirements for the use of one
single cylinder (LPG Gas).
6. At the outset Mr. Sakhare would submit that conditions
mentioned in said No-Objection Certificate granted to the Appellant
appended at page No.123 and when read overleaf at page No.124,
inter alia, pertaining to use of LPG Gas cylinder shall be scrupulously
adhered to by Plaintiff who is the Appellant before me.
7. The necessity to approach the City Civil Court has arisen
because sometime last year the Corporation Officer undertook an
inspection of the suit premises belonging to the Plaintiff and prepared
an Inspection Report dated 26.07.2025 which has been duly referred
to in the impugned order. The Sanitary Inspector of 'A' Ward has
stated in the Inspection Report that the trade and sale of preparation
was carried out without the licenses. That prima facie, is not correct as
the licenses are in place because the learned Trial Court while giving
its finding in paragraph No.12 has prima facie opined upon the validity
and subsistence of the licenses issued in favour of Plaintiff.
2 of 5
P9.AOST.6311.2026.doc
8. The bone of contention is or rather was that Plaintiff is using
LPG Gas Cylinder for preparation of food as an infringement of
condition Nos.4 and 12 i.e. change of commodity / additional
commodity other than for which license is granted under Section 394
of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
9. Prima facie when the license and the No-Objection given by
Mumbai Municipal Corporation appended at page No.123 is seen, the
said contention of the Defendant - Corporation is prima facie incorrect.
Despite the learned Trial Court returning the finding that licenses
issued in favour of Plaintiff are valid with direction to Corporation to
stop use of LPG Cylinder and preparing food in the stall the later
direction is prima facie contrary to and in the teeth of the license
which has been issued.
10. However the facts noted in the impugned order that Plaintiff
may be occupying some premises on the footpath of the road as
contended in the Inspection Report prepared by the Sanitary Inspector
and which is based on the photographs placed on record needs to be
kept in check.
11. Mr. Sakhare in his usual fairness after taking instructions
informs the Court that his client shall strictly adhere to the conditions
mentioned in the license and he shall not use any part of the footpath
and if he is found derelicting the same, Corporation or the Court can
3 of 5
P9.AOST.6311.2026.doc
undoubtedly take steps in accordance with law. The Corporation shall
investigate derelictions, if any and file appropriate proceedings in
accordance with law. The Corporation shall also ensure that he will not
use any part of the footpath for his trade. Plaintiff - Appellant shall file
such undertaking in this Court within a period of one week from today
on Affidavit.
12. In that view of the matter, the order dated 21.02.2026 is not
sustainable and is quashed and set aside.
13. No coercive steps shall be taken against the Juice Stall of the
Plaintiff in furtherance of the impugned Notice for the present.
Needless to state that if Corporation desires to take any coercive steps,
they shall give one week notice to Plaintiff, to enable Plaintiff to take
recourse to law.
14. Plaintiff shall adhere to all terms and conditions of the
licenses issued.
15. Mr. Vajale, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf of
Corporation.
16. All contentions of the parties, including Corporation are kept
expressly open in the Suit proceedings.
17. In view of this order, no purpose shall be served by keeping
Appeal from Order pending in this Court.
4 of 5
P9.AOST.6311.2026.doc
18. In view of the above terms, Appeal from Order is disposed.
In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, pending Interim Application
is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.03.30
18:21:26 +0530
5 of 5
