ndm 1 15-wp.8793.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8793 OF 2009 Ajit Shankar Kumbhardare. ... PETITIONER Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... RESPONDENTS ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. S.P. Konuga a/w Mrs. P.P. Bhosale i/b Mrs. Sapna Nath for Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Putne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ CORAM : SMT. R.S. DALVI, J. DATE : 09 th February, 2010. P.C. 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2 The Petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector dated 08.07.2009 in this Petition. The order shows the actual place of business of the Respondent No.4, which is seen to be incorrect. The Petitioner states that the order of the Collector dated 08.07.2009 is passed in collusion with the Respondent No.4. 3 The Respondent No.4 applied for and obtained a licence for running a video game parlour. The licence has been issued on ndm 2 15-wp.8793.09.sxw 04.03.2008 valid upto 31.12.2008 for the premises shown in a plan annexed to the licence. That premises showing the “location of the video game parlour” shows the video game parlour in a room abutting Masjid Road, Mahableshwar, District Satara. The property, in which the licence was granted belongs to the Respondent No.4. It is a quadrangular property between the Masjid Road and one Dr. Sabne Road on CTS No. 108. The video game parlour was not in a room abutting Dr. Sabne Road. There are several rooms admittedly in the occupation of other occupants / tenants of Respondent No.4 between the two premises abutting on the aforesaid two rooms in the Petitioner’s property. The Respondent No.4 chose not to carry on the business in the premises for which the licence was issued showing “the location of the video game parlour”. 4 The Respondent No.4 applied for change of the location before the Collector. He required to change the room of the parlour from the north side of the property to the south side of the property because his business was not being carried out profitably on the north side. His application came to be refused by the Collector on 18.09.2009 because under the prevalent rules his video game parlour would came within “75 meters of the present place of video game”. ndm 3 15-wp.8793.09.sxw 5 The Respondent No.4 challenged that order before the Home Department Special. The learned Home Minister granted a stay of the Collector’s order and directed that the Respondent’s “establishment shall remain working during the period of stay”. 6 The Respondent No.4, however, changed his place of business from the north side of the building to the south side of the building. He has no licence at the south side. He was not allowed to change his location by the learned Minister. He contends that the order of the learned Minister allows him to carry on such business because the order of the Collector is stayed. That contention is not only incorrect, but dis­honest. He has never started any business because he could never start business on the south side pending his application. He must apply for change of the premises for which the licence is granted. It is only after the premises are allowed to be started that he can start his business thereat. The order of the learned Minister staying the order of the Collector allows the Respondent No.4 to work in his establishment during the period of stay. That establishment is the establishment where the licence is initially granted and since remaining unmodified. 7 The Respondent No.4 would be entitled to carry on his video game parlour business on the north side of the property abutting to ndm 4 15-wp.8793.09.sxw Masjid Road until he obtains an order of the learned Minister in the appeal filed by him, which is yet pending. 8 The Respondent’s advocate contended that the Respondent had obtained certificate from the Mahableshwar Nagar Parishad to carry on his business at the changed place. The Certificate dated 09.09.2009 obtained pending the application filed in September, 2009 and prior to the order of the Collector refusing his application on 18.09.2009, does not allow the Respondent No. 4 to carry on his business on the south side of the property. It only states that there is no objection for doing the video game business “in the said property”. It is therefore implicit in the NOC that the Nagar Parishad has no objection if the Respondent No.4 carries on business, where he has got the licence in his property. It cannot grant “no objection” to carry on business where the Respondent has not obtained any licence. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.07.2009 is directly contrary to the actual order of the Collector passed on the application of the Respondent No.4. The complaint of the Petitioner is shown to be solved. That is incorrect. Admittedly, the Respondent No.4 carries on business on the south side of the property abutting Dr. Sabne Road where he has got no licence. The order dated 08.07.2009 is seen to have been superseded by the order shown by Respondent No.4. Hence that order cannot stand and must be set aside. ndm 5 15-wp.8793.09.sxw 9 However, the Respondent No.4 shall be entitled to prosecute the appeal before the learned Home Minister. Until the order is passed in the appeal of Respondent No.4, he cannot carry on the business from the south side of the property. He shall be entitled to continue carrying on business on the north side. 10 Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ SMT. R.S. DALVI, J ]