:1: :1: :1: 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 PETITION NO. 3255 OF 2007 M/s. Suncity Lodging and Boarding through its proprietor Shri Amit Bhaskar Shettty ...Petitioners Versus The Collector, Thane and 3 Ors. ....Respondents G.S.Godbole, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar Adv. for respondent no.1 and 2. Mishra, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 7th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner before me is a proprietor of a Lodging and Boarding business. He acquired Shop No. 17, 18 and 19 at Nallasopara which shop premises are situated in the building of the Respondent no.3 society. After acquisition of these premises, the petitioner applied for a licence on 19.9.2005. The :2: :2: :2: petitioner also relied upon a report of the Officer and the No-Objection Certificate issued by the Chief Officer, Nallasopara Municipal Council. In such circumstances, a licence was issued to him by the licensing Authority, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner does not dispute that the term of his licence is over and he had applied for renewal of the same. However, the petitioner relies upon the fact that the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council on 20.4.2006, withdrew the No-objection Certificate granted earlier and that is how the Sub.Divisional Magistrate proceeded to cancel the licence. The cancellation is challenged in a civil suit and an application for interim relief was made therein. The interim injunction was granted with a view to protect the petitioner’s possession and occupation of the shop premises. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Sub.Divisional Magistrate dated 17.5.2006 before the Appellate Authority namely the Collector District, Thane who has dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order of Sub.Divisional Magistrate. :3: :3: :3: 2. Aggrieved by this action, the petition is filed. 3. Mr.Godbole does not dispute that the licence period is over. Mr.Godbole does not dispute that for the petitioner to carry on lodging and boarding business a fresh licence would be necessary. Mr.Godbole also does not dispute that the business can be carried on if the earlier licence is renewed. However, for both steps to be taken by the licensing authority upon an application made in that behalf, the apprehension is that the observations of the Collector that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of licence would be an impediment. The apprehension is that the licensing authority would be influenced by the observations and may not process the application and grant the licence. 4. I see no basis for such an apprehension at this stage. Admittedly, the application for renewal of the subject licence is pending and not decided. The order of the Sub.Divisional Magistrate dated 17.5.2006, copy of which is annexed to the present petition, :4: :4: :4: relies upon the fact of the NOC being withdrawn by the Nallasopara Municipal Council and that is how the licence was cancelled. The Collector has upheld this order. Merely because the Collector has referred to some complaints of the residents and occupants of the building, does not mean that the Collector has given some conclusive findings that the petitioner was responsible for the acts complained of. These are matters which are pending before the civil court and no observation of the Collector can influence either the Sub.Divisional Magistrate or such other authority which is in-charge of implementing the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Application for grant of fresh licence shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to revive his pending application for renewal or make a fresh application and if either course suggested by Mr.Godbole is adopted, the Licensing Authority shall decide such applications strictly on merits and in accordance with law, so also, uninfluenced by the observations of the Collector in the order passed on the petitioner’s Appeal. In the light of this, Mr.Godbole does not press the challenge :5: :5: :5: to the impugned order and petition is accordingly disposed off. ******