WP 5206 of 10 1 SSK/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5206 OF 2010 Ajit Shankar Kumbhardare ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S. P. Kanuga i/b. Mr. J.S.Chandnani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. G. S. Godbole a/w. Mr. Karan Bhosale i/b. M/s. Divya Shah & Associates for Respondent No.4. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Kanuga, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. The Respondent No.4 applied for and was granted licence to run a Video Game Parlour in a room abutting Masjid Road on 4th March, 2008. Subsequently, the Respondent No.4 preferred an application before the WP 5206 of 10 2 SSK/11 Respondent No.2-Collector for changing the place of Video Game Parlour business. This application was rejected on 18th September, 2009 on two grounds viz. the place of new business mentioned in the application falls within 75 meters from the place of the present Video Game Parlour and the Collector’s Office has no jurisdiction to grant such permission. This order was challenged by the Respondent No.4 before the Hon’ble State Minister (Home). By the impugned order, the Respondent No.1-Hon’ble State Minister (Home) granted Respondent No.4 permission to shift his place of Video Game Business and therefore, the present petition. 3. The Petitioner challenges the impugned order on two grounds viz. Firstly, there is no provision for shifting the place of business under the relevant rule and secondly, the Respondent No.4’s new place of business falls within 75 meters from the place of the present Video Game Parlour. 4. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that under Rule 226 of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960, the Collector has a power to exempt the terms and conditions of the said Rules. The impugned order, however, does not disclose that the Hon’ble State Minister (Home) has exercised powers under the said Rule. WP 5206 of 10 3 SSK/11 In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 agrees for setting-aside both the orders viz. Order of the Collector dated 18th September, 2009 and the impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by Hon’ble State Minister (Home) and go back before Respondent No.2-Collector. In view of the concession given by Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4, reasons need not be recorded for setting-aside the impugned order. The petition accordingly is disposed of, by passing the following order: 1. The Order of the Collector dated 18th September, 2009 as well as the impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by Hon’ble State Minister(Home) are quashed and set-aside. 2. The Respondent No.4 is at liberty to apply to Respondent No.2-Collector afresh for change of place of Video Game Business. The Respondent No.4 is also at liberty to point out to the Collector that he can exempt Respondent No.4 from the rigours of any provisions of the said Rule. 3. In the event, Respondent No.4 files an application as WP 5206 of 10 4 SSK/11 stated above within a period of two weeks from today, same shall be decided by Respondent No.2-Collector as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of further four weeks thereafter. Needless to mention that the Collector shall decide the said application independently on its own merits and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No.4. (R. V. MORE, J.)