1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3686 of 1994 Satyam Food Products, Nanded. Through its Proprietor, Vishwajit s/o. Vaijanathrao Mahajan, Age 24 years, Occ. Businesss, R/o. Kailashnagar, Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader. 2] The Municipal Council, Nanded through the Chief Officer, Nanded Municipal Council, Nanded. Respondents Ms. M.B. Vaishnav, Advocate holding for Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate for respondent absent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER S.V. GANGAPURWALA.J] :- 1] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] The present petition takes exception to the order dated 1/10/1994 issued by the Municipal council, Nanded and the order dated 5/10/1994 passed by the Chief Officer, Nanded Municipal Council, whereby, the no objection certificate of the petitioner to run 2 the small scale unit of the petitioner, has been suspended. 3] The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner after obtaining a valid licence has started the factory in the name and style of “Satyam Food Products” at Kailash Nagar, Nanded. It manufacturers the food products – cherry, Tuty Fruity etc., and the petitioner possesses the necessary licence for the same. 4] The petitioner was also issued a no objection certificate and the licence is being renewed from year to year. The petitioner has contended that in the year 1994, relatives of the Sanitory Inspector requested the petitioner to employ their son in the unit of the petitioner, which the petitioner refused and as such, being annoyed by the refusal on the part of the petitioner to employ the sons of the relative of the Sanitary Inspector, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Nanded, suspended the No objection certificate and licence of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to close down the unit. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Vaishnav submitted that while passing the impugned order, the authorities have not observed the principles of natural justice and in a very casual manner, have suspended the NOC and the licence. According to the learned counsel, there was no reason nor any infringement on the part of the petitioner so as to initiate such a punitive action against the petitioner. 6] The respondent Municipal council, though served, has not filed any affidavit in reply. Even on the last occasion, at the request of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Municipal 3 Council, time was granted. But, till this date, no affidavit in reply has been filed to controvert the contentions of the petitioner as detailed in the writ petition. So, on the basis of the principle of non-traverse, the contentions of the petitioner will have to be accepted as true and correct. 7] No doubt, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice to which a detailed reply has been given by the petitioner. The Chief Officer,without considering the reply of the petitioner, in a very casual manner has suspended the NOC on the ground that some neighbours have complained about the same. In view of the fact that the impugned orders do not disclose the application of mind on the part of the authorities, and the same are passed without considering the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the said orders cannot sustain in the eyes of law. The petitioner has been running the said food factory since the year 1990. Even while admitting the writ petition, interim orders have been passed by this court, by virtue of which, the petitioner is running the factory. Even during the intervening period of 16 years, the Municipal Council has not brought on record any material showing that there are complaints against the petitioner factory. 8] In the light of the above, we quash and set aside the impugned order and make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B), however, with no orders as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp 4