1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3090 OF 2010 (Shri Krishnana V. Adgulwar vs. Collector and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 Heard Shri Ninawe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of grant of licence for opening Restaurant and Bar in favour of respondent no.4 by the competent Authority. Shri Ninawe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that action of respondent Authorities in granting licence to the petitioner is violative of relevant conditions of licence. It is submitted that Clause 13 of the conditions 2 contemplates that if the land/premises is rented, rent receipt and tenancy agreement and “no objection certificate” for permit room from land owner/Secretary of the Society are necessary. It is contended that respondent no.4 did not produce rent receipt or no objection certificate for permit room and, therefore, action of the respondent Authorities in granting licence is bad in law. We asked the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show averment in this regard in the petition, to which the learned Counsel has fairly conceded that there is no averment made in the petition. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4, states that respondent no.4 fulfilled all the conditions and, therefore, licence was granted to the respondent no.4 in the year 1982, which was renewed from time to time by the respondent Authorities after going through the relevant provisions applicable in this regard. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In the instant case, though grievance is made by the 3 petitioner against grant of licence on the basis of Clause 13 of the conditions, however, for want of specific averment in the petition, it is not possible for us to show indulgence. Even otherwise, it appears that the licence, which was granted to the respondent no.4 way back in the year 1982, has been renewed from time to time till this date. No case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj