1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.238 OF 2009 Northern Marine Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.239 OF 2009 Basell Polyolefins India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents Shri S.G. Gokhale for the Petitioners. Shri Sandeep Patil for the BMC. Ms P.H. Kantharia, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 P.C: 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard 2 together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Referring to the facts given in the petitions, it appears that complaints have been filed by the respondent-BMC against the petitioners before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the complaints. The petitioners are accused of having committed offences in terms of Section 394 r/w Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1962. The case of the petitioners is that they are not running any business of selling tea or coffee. They have installed vending machine for tea and coffee for the use of their employees which is, according to the them, accepted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. We have gone through the complaints. The complaints are filed by filling up the gaps in a proforma which does not mention as to when the alleged offence was committed and what were the necessary facts which constituted an offence. In column 4(iv) of the complaints, it is mentioned, Carrying on or allowing to be carried on or suffering to be carried the trade of or any process of operation connected with the trade of Tea-Coffee Shop without a licence 3 from the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Mumbai, on 13/8/08 . This statement in the complaints, in our view, does not on its own constitute an offence. Surprisingly, the Metropolitan Magistrate also does not appear to have applied his mind. A stamp is affixed on the complaints which reads, Issue Summons u/s 394(1)(e)(i) Return on 1/12/08 . It appears that the Metropolitan Magistrate has put his signature after the affixation of the stamps on the complaints. Metropolitan Magistrates are not just stamps to be affixed on complaints. When a complaint is made to a Metropolitan Magistrate, he is supposed to apply his mind and record at least the satisfaction that it was a case in which summons had to be issued. Even in the counter affidavit which has been filed in this Court, in para 9 (at page 32) thereof it has been stated that an office is run in a premises of about 20,000 sq.ft., having 85 persons in its employment, it would not be unusual that the office maintains a tea and coffee machine and if tea and coffee are offered to the employees and guests, that would not constitute it to be a catering shop. For these reasons, we find that since the complaints do not disclose any offence, therefore, this process cannot be allowed to 4 go. Hence, the complaints in both the cases are quashed. The petitions stand disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)