*1* wp.183.11.940.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.183 OF 2011 Bhorik Santu Yadav. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Noel Pinto i/b M.P.Vashi & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar, for the Respondents/BMC. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 24th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of appeal by the Small Causes Court which appeal was directed against the order dated 17.03.2009 of the Respondents revoking the permit granted in respect of the flour mill. The Petitioner is running a flour mill in the name and style “Yadav Flour Mill” situate at 63-1C/10, Yadav Nagar, Sahakar Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai-400102. The Petitioner was granted the licence/permit long back on 18.01.1989 to run the flour mill which was renewed up to 31.12.2008. The Petitioner applied for renewal, but it was not renewed. It is stated that one Dinesh Patil, next door neighbour of the Petitioner, is working in Mantralaya and his sister is working as Home Guard. They are on inimical terms with the Petitioner and his family, therefore, they have lodged false complaints with the authorities alleging that the flour mill causes nuisance and annoyance to the public. There was spot inspection conducted as far back on 06.09.2004. It is not necessary to enter into any wider controversy and particularly, whether *2* wp.183.11.940.sxw the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner by way of appeal are maintainable or not. It is a flour mill which is established in the year 1989 and its license was renewed up to 31.12.2008. The spot inspection which is relied upon is dated 06.09.2004. Despite such inspection and finding that it has some adverse remarks, the authorities continued to renew the licence/ permit till 31.12.2008. 2 On the last occasion and even today, the Petitioner is present and his counsel stated that there is no annoyance and nuisance caused and the Petitioner has complied with all terms and conditions including thickening of walls and fixing the joint less belt. Barring the complaints made by the said two persons, there is no other complaint. The persons residing in the said vicinity and particularly ladies are taking advantage of the flour mill. It is functioning since more than a decade. Non renewal has created problem to the Petitioner and particularly he is thrown out of business. 3 In such circumstances, I had orally directed the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to take instructions as to whether, the Petitioner’s application for renewal will be considered de-hors the order passed on the maintainability of the appeal and strictly in terms of the applicable rules and guidelines. He took time and the matter was adjourned today. 4 Today, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation informed the Court that the officer concerned, namely, Mr.M.T.Jambukar, Sectional Engineer (Factory), who is present in the Court, is empowered to consider the application for renewal. The learned counsel states that the said officer will consider the Petitioner’s application for renewal of the flour mill and take decision thereon as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from today. *3* wp.183.11.940.sxw 5 If the Petitioner’s licence is renewed within the time stipulated above, needless to state that the Respondents will return the equipments seized from the establishment of the Petitioner. The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and within the time specified above, strictly in compliance with the guidelines and rules applicable and without being influenced by the earlier order. 6 The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)