- 1 - 2186 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2186 OF 1993 Naveen Roy Kapur .. Petitioner vs Municipal Corpn of Gr.Mumbai.. Respondents Mr.Niranjan Pandit i.b Shah & Singhavi for Petitioner Mr.P.G.Lad with Ms Priti Purandare for Respondents CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE: 11th January,2011 P.C. 1. The Petitioner by this petition makes a grievance against the communication dated 3rd July, 1991. By that communication the application submitted by the petitioner dated 14th March, 1991 for grant of licence to establish a factory in the premises was rejected. The reason given in the communication for rejecting that application is that the building is used for residential purpose. Perusal of the record reveals that - 2 - 2186 the petitioner himself had applied by letter dated 2nd May,1988 for change of user of the premises. Petitioner wanted to use the premises as a show room for garment display. By an order dated 2nd June,1988 that permission was granted subject to certain conditions. The Corporation-authorities found that the petitioner is running a factory in the premises. Therefore, it appears that a prosecution was launched against the petitioner. The petitioner made an application thereafter on 14th March,1991 for grant of license to run the factory in the premises. That application was rejected One of the ground was that the premises have been permitted to be used as a show room the premises are in residential building and therefore, the license for running a factory cannot be given in relation to the premises which are permitted to be used for residential and/or for displaying garments. - 3 - 2186 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly submitted that what he is running in the premises is not a factory and that he applied for a license to run the factory because prosecution was launched against the petitioner. In our opinion, this submission cannot be accepted. If according to the petitioner if he was not running a factory then in the prosecution that was launched against the petitioner it could have been raised by him as a defence. It was not necessary for the petitioner to apply for a license for running a factory when according to him he was not running a factory. The fact that the petitioner has applied for a license to run the factory shows that the petitioner conceded the position that he is running a factory in the premises. In our opinion, once the petitioner applies for permission to run the factory in the - 4 - 2186 premises, the Corporation-authorities would be justified in finding out whether under the relevant rules the petitioner is permitted to use the premises for running a factory. Perusal of the communication dated 2nd June, 1988 shows that the petitioner was permitted to use the premises which was otherwise residential premises as a showroom for display of garments only. Had the Corporation granted permission to run the factory in the premises that would have gone against the order of the Corporation itself dated 2nd June,1988 restricting change of user only to display of garments. In our opinion therefore when order dated 2nd June, 1988 is standing, the Corporation could not have granted license to the petitioner to run the factory in the same premises. In our opinion, therefore no fault can be found with the action of the Corporation which is impugned in the petition. Petition, - 5 - 2186 therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. D.K.Deshmukh, J N.D.Deshpande, J