1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 76 OF 2008 Alert Mumbaikar ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent. Mr. D.C. Shah for the Petitioner Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for the Respondent. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: APRIL 8, 2009 P.C.:- This petition was filed in public interest, mainly for giving directions to the Municipal Corporation to close down restaurants, hotels, eating places, which were being run without licence. A list of 18 such eateries was furnished to the Court. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed, in which it is stated that out of these 18 eateries, four were licensed, and three of them had been closed, and against the rest which did not have licence, prosecution has been initiated under Section 394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Therefore, we do not think that any further orders are needed to be 2 passed by this Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that there are hundreds of eateries in the City of Mumbai, which are being run without licence, and the Corporation is not taking any action against them. 3. We direct that the Corporation shall look into the complaint, and take suitable action against any eatery, hotel, restaurant, which is being run without the requisite permission / licence from the Corporation. The petitioner is also at liberty to move the Municipal Commissioner to bring to his notice the particulars of any such eatery, hotel or restaurant, which is being run without the requisite licence. If any such complaint is made by the petitioner, that shall be disposed of expeditiously by the Municipal Authorities. P.I.L. is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.