*1* wp.10248.09.917.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10248 OF 2009 Kisan Chandarlal Bharindwal. ..Petitioner ­Versus­ Pratibha Prabhakar Kale and another. ..Respondents .......... Mr.P.S.Dani, for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondents/State. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 07th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, the petition is disposed of finally. 2 The Petitioner was issued an Eating House Licence. The said licence was issued on the basis that the Petitioner is in possession of the premises from where he is conducting the hotel business. Subsequently, the first Respondent claiming ownership rights in the said premises/property objected to the Petitioner’s operating the hotel business, therefore, an application for renewal of the licence came to be rejected. An appeal against the said order has also failed. The Petitioner is aggrieved by these orders and therefore, the present petition. 3 The contesting Respondent No.1 is duly served. The Advocate appearing on her behalf is absent. The Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are represented by the learned AGP. *2* wp.10248.09.917.sxw 4 None of the statements made in the petition are controverted. In fact they are based on the record. Even the authorities do not dispute that the Petitioner is in possession of the said premises bearing CTS No. 466­B at village Ghoti, Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. He has set up the Eating House there from 1975 and the licence was issued and it was renewed till 2006. Now, its renewal was not effected because the first Respondent has pointed out that she has ongoing disputes with regard to the rights in the premises and the civil suits are pending. Accepting this stand of the Respondent No.1, the authorities have refused to renew the licence. 5 The learned AGP was unable to point out anything from record or from the subject enactment or rules or guidelines which enables the authorities to withhold the permission or licence on the ground that the alleged owner/landlord has objected to the continuation of the person conducting the hotel business from the above premises. The authorities, as is well settled, are not concerned with the dispute about title to the premises. Once they have permitted the Petitioner to set up and carry on the hotel business in the premises from 1975, then, merely because the first Respondent has objected and made a complaint, by itself is no ground to refuse the renewal of the licence. Apart from this complaint, there is nothing else on record which enables the authorities to withhold the renewal. 6 In such circumstances, the orders and directions in that behalf cannot be sustained. The orders passed on 22.06.2007 by the Respondent No.2 and on 02.09.2008 by the Respondent No.3 are quashed and set aside. It is directed that the authorities shall renew the licence of the Petitioner but such renewal shall be subject to the such terms and conditions as prescribed in the concerned rules and the same shall be *3* wp.10248.09.917.sxw without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on the issue of right and title of the parties in the subject immovable property. 7 Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)