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 WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 Parshuram Nagesh Dandekar. .. Petitioner. vs. The Ward Officer, "A" Ward, Municipal Corproation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms. B.P. Jakhade for Petitioner. Ms. P.A. Purandare for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.J. Mane, AGP., for Respondent nos.4 & 5. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2008. DATE: 9TH JULY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction against the respondent Corporation to forthwith issue licence in favour of the petitioner in respect of stall situated at the Junction of Mahapalika Marg, Waudby Road, Mumbai and to forthwith 2 compute ground rent of the said stall as well as permit the petitioner to use the premises admeasuring 56.1 sq. mtr. of which ground rent is calculated and charged and also seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned directions dated 15/10/1993, 18/10/2004 and 1/07/2006 along with other ancillary reliefs. It is not disputed that by virtue of an order passed in Writ Petition No. 2201 of 1993 filed by the petitioner, this Court had directed the Additional Municipal Commissioner to determine and re-fix the grounds rent which is to be charged to the petitioner after giving a hearing to the petitioner and accordingly after hearing the petitioner, the respondent Additional Municipal Corporation has fixed the ground rent to be charged at Rs. 12,400/- per annum. A copy of the said order is also annexed to their affidavit in reply as Exhibit-I. Though the petitioner is carrying on business of eatables and conducts a trade activity of cooking and serving across the counter. He has been doing so without any licence from the respondent which has resulted in taking action against the petitioner as per the provisions of the MMC Act like seizure of the articles and in order to prevent the petitioner from conducting the trade activity of eating house without valid licence under section 394 of the MMC Act. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner. We find no error or illegality on the part of the Additional Municipal 3 Commissioner who has passed the order dated 19.10.2001. But, in order to be fair to the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the appropriate forum as provided under the said Act. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in our extra-ordinary jurisdiction and, therefore, we dismiss the petition. 5. We make it clear that nothing prevents the Municipal Corporation from taking appropriate action against the petitioner if he conducts an unauthorised business and has failed to pay ground rent as required under the law. 6. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.) ( K.U. Chandiwal, J.)