- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3498/1999 M/s Bharuka Medical Stores, Panchakki Road, Aurangabad. Through its Partner Manmohan s/o Lalchand Bharuka, age major, occu.business, r/o Near University Gate, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The Licensing Authority, Food & Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Aurangabad. 2] Hon’ble Minister for Health, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3] The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate h/f Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B. Choudhary, Additional G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. ..... - 2 - CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 12.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner challenges the order dated 26.5.1999 passed by the respondent no.2 thereby cancelling the licence in favour of the petitioner for retail medial shop. The petitioner was issued a communication by the respondent no.1 on 9.12.1998 calling upon him as to what document he possessed to show that he was in lawful possession of the premises where he was running the medical shop. The petitioner contended that the said premises were owned by one Sk.Hussain s/o Sk.Chand and that the petitioner had entered into partnership with him. However, the respondent no.1 found that the petitioner’s possession was not lawful and, therefore, cancelled the licence. 3] As already observed by this Court while granting interim relief on 29.10.1999 that the licence in favour of the petitioner can be cancelled by the respondent no.1 only if there is violation of any of the conditions stipulated in the licence or violation of any statutory conditions. The question as to whether the occupation of the petitioner is lawful or not, or as to whether the petitioner has a title to the premises in question, is not an issue germane for the purpose of cancellation of the licence. - 3 - We, therefore, find that the order impugned is not sustainable in law. 4] Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). No order as to costs. We clarify that we have not taken into consideration the issue as to whether the occupation of the petitioner is lawful or as to whether the petitioner has title to the premises in question or not, and if any dispute as to that issue arises, the persons concerned may get the same resolved before the competent forum. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c12810