: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.54 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2691 OF 2008 Haji M.C. Abdul Kadar (M/s. Hotel Tourist) ..Applicant. Vs. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.R.Naidu for the Applicant. Ms.Thadani with Mr.Pradeep J. Ramchandani for the Petitioner. Ms.T.R.Puranik for the Respondent - B.M.C. Mr.S.A.Vichare, Representative of Court Receiver present. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, DATED : DATED : DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009 2ND MARCH, 2009 2ND MARCH, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : This chamber summons has been taken out by the Applicant to be impleaded in the Writ Petition. 2. The Writ Petition challenges an order of the BMC cancelling the eating house licence. The cancellation is on various grounds stated in the notice dated 20.6.2008 (Exhibit "Q" to the petition). One of the grounds is that an area in excess of that in the possession of the Petitioner is being used for the business. There are also : 2 : issues regarding safety. 3. The matter is a little more complicated than a mere cancellation of the eating house licence. The Petitioner is the agent of the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver was appointed in a suit for partition, filed between the co-owners. The Petitioner was not a party to the suit. The Petitioner was in possession of a part of the suit premises, claiming to have a right therein through one of the co-owners. As the Petitioner was a stranger to the suit, his possession was protected. He however continued only as the agent of the Court Receiver. 4. In these circumstances, it is necessary in any event for the Petitioner to implead the Court Receiver to the Writ Petition. The Petitioner has no objection to a same. Hence, the Court Receiver shall be impleaded as Respondent no.3. 5. It is true that the question whether the Petitioner’s licence should be granted/renewed or not is a matter between the BMC and the Petitioner. The Applicant or any other party claiming a right therein must adopt independent : 3 : proceedings against the Petitioner in respect of the said property. However, the nature of these allegations in the show cause notice regarding the Petitioner allegedly using an excess area and as to the safety of the building are concerned, assistance from the owners of the properties would necessary to the Court Receiver in any event. 6. Instead of the owners/Applicants who have obtained a decree for partition approaching the Court Receiver each time, it would be convenient to add the Applicant as a property party. 7. It is clarified that the mere impleading of the Applicant would not in any manner whatsoever adversely affect the Petitioner’s right to the eating house licence. He is impleaded only in the above peculiar facts. Accordingly, the applicant shall be impleaded as Respondent no.4. 8. Needless to add, that the pendency of this Writ Petition would not in any manner affect the other proceedings pending between the parties. 9. Amendment to be carried out on or before 1.4.2009. : 4 : S.o. to 1.4.2009.