ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2966 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2966 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2966 OF 2008 M/s.H.J.Buhariwala & Associates ...Petitioner Vs. Cantonment Board, Pune ...Respondent. Mr.P.S.Dani i/by M/s.Thakkar & Bali for the Petitioner. Mr.A.B.Tajane for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008 : 28th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr.Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Tajane the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner challenges the Respondent’s order refusing to renew his trade license for running Canteen in West End Cinema. 3. The Petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises which is more appropriately described in Paragraph No.3 of the Petition. There is no dispute that on 30/11/1990, the Petitioner is inducted as a tenant in this premises after redevelopment of the building. ( 2 ) There is also no dispute that trade license was given to the Petitioner on 03/11/1990 for running West End Cinema canteen for selling snacks, cold drinks, tea, Coffee, ice-creams, chocolates etc. The Petitioner is running this business since last 17 years. The trade license is required to be renewed every year. During all these 17 years, the Petitioner’s trade licence was renewed from time to time by the Respondent. 4. The Petitioner’s case is that, his landlord pressurizing him to vacate the suit premises unlawfully as the rate of suit properties which is situated in the commercial area have shot up to a great extent. It is further case of the Petitioner that the landlord somehow wants tostall the business of the Petitioner by conniving with the Authorities of the Respondent. The Respondent, therefore, issued a notice alleging that Petitioner’s canteen was being run in an unhygienic manner and was near to the toilet block and hence action needs to be taken against the Petitioner. The Petitioner pointed out that the allegation in the notice are not true and accordingly no action has been initiated. 5. In the March, 2007, the Petitioner filed an ( 3 ) application for renewal of the Trade license with the Respondent. However, the same came to be rejected by the order impugned in this Petition. The Petitioner’s contentions are twofold. Firstly, the order refusing to renew the licence is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and secondly, the ground on which the trade licence was rejected (viz. want of N.O.C. from the landlord) on the ground which is not sustainable under law. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 showed his readiness and willingness to consider the Petitioner’s application for renewal afresh. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, in my opinion the ground on which Respondent refused to renew the licence, i.e. the Petitioner has not obtained N.O.C. from landlords, does not stand to scrutiny of the law. Section 277 of the Cantonments Act-2006 speaks about the requirement of the licence for carrying on certain occupations. Sub Section 2 of Section 277 specifically states that the grant of licence shall not be withheld by the Respondent, unless it has reason to believe that the business which is intended to establish or maintain ( 4 ) would be offensive or dangerous to the public or that the premises in which the business is intended to be established or maintained are unfit or unsuitable for the purpose. 8. It is not disputed that none of the grounds mentioned under Sub-section 2 of Section 277 is applicable to the Petitioner’s case. Be that as it may. The trade license initially was granted to the Petitioner in November, 1990 and the same was renewed from the year to year basis since from last 17 years. During the period of these 17 years, the Respondent Authority never demanded N.O.C. from the Petitioner’s landlord and for the first time, for renewal in the present year, same was being insisted. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent could not point out any provisions either under the Cantonments Act-2006 or any other Act under which the N.O.C. from the landlord is necessary to be obtained for the purpose of renewal of the trade license. In that view of the matter I dispose of the matter by passing the following order:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R ( 5 ) 1. The impugned order passed by the Respondent refusing the renewal of the Petitioner’s trade license for want of N.O.C. from the owner is quashed and set aside. 2. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent to consider the Petitioner’s Application for renewal of trade license in respect of his canteen business, afresh in the light of observations made above. 3. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. The Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the Petitioner’s application for renewal of the licence within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order. (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, (R.V.MORE, J.) J.) J.)