wp4027-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4027 OF 2011 M/s.Kultaj Hotel Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj C. Kansara for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 14th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard. Rule. By consent of parties taken for hearing forthwith. The petitioner’s licence of eating house and lodging has been cancelled. The argument of Mr.Kansara appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the licensing authority at the hearing has observed in para 5 of the order that the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice but thereafter there has been no response and particularly to the communication dated 8th September 2010 under which it was called to file necessary documents. In these circumstances, the licensing authority proceeded to consider the available material and passed the order of cancelling the licence. wp4027-11.doc 2 2 However, the grievance is that this is not correct because the petitioner had replied to the show cause notice and denied all the allegations. The petitioner was awaiting further response in as much as there was no communication of the date of hearing. The intimation purported to have been issued on 8th September 2010 was never received by the petitioner. This ground has been specifically raised and there are no denials according to Mr.Kansara. 3 On the last occasion when this matter had appeared before the learned single Judge of this Court, opportunity was given to the learned A.G.P to produce the necessary record. Even affidavit was permitted to be filed. Nothing of this kind has been done within the time stipulated by this Court. In these circumstances and at the hearing of the civil application, the writ petition is itself taken up for hearing. 4 In my view, the authority which proceeds to cancel the licence has to be vigilant and careful to support the action when it wp4027-11.doc 3 is challenged before this Court. When this Court on the grounds of non compliance with the principles of natural justice issues notice and protects the petitioner’s establishment, it vitally affects public interest in as much as persons and entities like the petitioner who have been proceeded against for breach and violation of the provisions of the Bombay Police Act and applicable rules so also the terms and conditions of the licence get away by virtue of the ad-interim protection and such establishments continue to operate to the detriment of the interests of residents in the vicinity and the neighbourhood. On ocassions, I have found that the activities cause immense inconvenience, hardship and nuisance to those residing within the vicinity. In these circumstances, the request of the learned A.G.P to grant further time is refused. 5 In my view, interest of justice would be served if the orders under challenge are set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the licencing authority afresh to contest the show cause notice. The licencing authority will permit the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, if they are so wp4027-11.doc 4 produced within the period of one week from today. Thereafter, the licencing authority will hear the petitioner and pass a fresh order uninfluenced by any of the observations in the impugned orders. He will pass the reasoned orders afresh as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from today. For a period of six weeks from today, the ad-interim order passed by this Court will continue but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)