: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.29 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.39 OF 2010 Manilal Harakchand Gala & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai .. Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani i/b. Mr. D.J. Lulia for the Appellants. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate, with Smt. K.K. Soraan for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 20 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 7th January, 2010, passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, rejecting the Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No.23 of 2010 taken out by the appellants. 2. The Suit has been filed by the appellants against the order passed by the respondent- Municipal Corporation requiring them to remove the : 2 : projections from their shop premises which are on the public street. An inspection report/notice was submitted on 1st July, 2009, requiring the appellants to remove the projections mentioned in the report within seven days. That notice was replied on 8th July, 2009 by the appellants contending that they had a valid license upto 31st December, 2011 for the projections and had paid fees for the same. The appellants also contended that the license could not be revoked in the manner sought to be done by the respondent-Municipal Corporation. 3. It appears that on 23rd July, 2009, an order was passed under clause (1)(b)(c) of Section 313 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by the respondent- Municipal Corporation revoking the appellants’ license. The grounds on which the license was revoked were that the project work of road widening was being undertaken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and that the existing weather sheds would cause a hindrance and nuisance to the proposed work of road widening. The third reason : 3 : for revoking the license was that the appellants were found keeping commodities, show cases and hanging articles below the projections, which was an infringement of the general condition No.4 in the projection license. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the license could not be revoked without hearing the appellants. Apart from this, he submits that the trial Court has refused an injunction on the ground that the entire structure of the shop is unauthorized. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent- Municipal Corporation submits that the reply of the appellants has been taken into consideration while passing the order for removal of the weather sheds. He submits that although the trial Court has observed that the shop itself is illegal, an affidavit of Mr. Sunil S. Phanase, Senior Inspector (Licence), P/North Ward of the respondent-Municipal Corporation has been filed, wherein he has stated that the road widening does not affect the : 4 : structures which today are standing on private property. It is also averred that the permission is revoked for the projection license only. Further it has been stated that in the event the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai wishes to take any action against the structures standing on private property, it would initiate independent / separate action in accordance with law. 6. Undoubtedly, the respondent-Municipal Corporation has the power to revoke a license, once issued to a party. However, the revocation of a licence results in civil consequences which adversely affect the licensee. Such consequences cannot be visited upon a licencee without affording him a hearing and without following the rules of natural justice. Serious prejudice would be caused to a person who has been issued a valid licence for a particular purpose and for which he had paid the stipulated licence fee, if the licence is revoked, cancelled or suspended without affording him a hearing. A valuable right which has accrued to a person cannot be abrogated in a summary fashion. : 5 : In the present case the license has been revoked on the three grounds as aforesaid. The appellants claim that the road widening work would not be affected by the projections which are 12 ft. above the road. It is also submitted that the projections would not cause any hindrance or nuisance to the road widening work. It is necessary for the respondent-Municipal Corporation to consider the representation made by the appellants by giving them a personal hearing, prior to revocation of the licence. 7. Once a license is issued to a party, it is necessary to hear the party before revoking the license under Section 313(1)(b)(c) of the aforesaid Act. This would be so whether the license is being revoked on the ground of road widening or otherwise. The argument that by following this procedure the road widening work would be affected or delayed is untenable. The respondent-Municipal Corporation can always take recourse to other provisions of the Act to ensure that the work of road widening is not hampered. : 6 : 8. In the present case, the license has been revoked not only on account of the road widening, but also on the ground that the commodities, show cases and articles are hung below the projections which is an infringement of general condition No.4 of the projection license. Therefore, obviously the appellants ought to have been heard before passing such an order where the licensing authority finds that they have committed a breach of the license, especially when the licence is valid upto 31st December, 2011. 9. In my view, therefore, the Appeal from Order must be allowed. 10. The respondent-Municipal Corporation cannot act on the order dated 23rd July, 2009. However, the respondent-Municipal Corporation is at liberty to take such action as permissible in law in order to ensure that its road widening project is not stalled. : 7 : 11. In view of the above, the Civil Application No.39 of 2010 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed. .......