1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2008 Hussain Ali Ismaile Badaksh .... .... Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ..... ... Respondent. Mr. R. U. Singh with Mr. A. A. Mirza for the Petitioner. Mr. N. A. Shaikh for the Respondent. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI and S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Yesterday, i.e. On 14th February, 2008, the matter was adjourned as the learned Counsel for the respondent was to get instructions. 2. Rule. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. By consent, rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 5. By order dated 4th February, 2008 two licenses of the petitioner, license bearing Nos. 037620 and 033502 are revoked. It is submitted by 2 the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a show cause notice was given to him by which he was asked as to why his license No.037620 be not canceled. The petitioner replied the said notice and after considering his reply the respondent canceled the said two licenses. It is submitted that for one of the licenses, there was not even a show cause notice. He challenges the cancellation of the said license on the ground that no show cause notice was given before its cancellation. 6. The cancellation of other license is challenged on the ground that the material on which the respondent relied i.e. the inspection report was not supplied and he was not informed as to what changes he has brought in the premises. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the inspection report, copy of which appears to have been given to the petitioner at the time of inspection. Therefore, this argument is not available to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had also been asked to remove the changes he has made in the premises, which he has not done. 7. In this view of the matter, as far as cancellation of license No.033502 is concerned, the same is set aside. As far as cancellation of license No.037620 is concerned, it is confirmed. However, it is open for the petitioner to make the changes in the premises as suggested by the 3 respondent and restore the same to its original position. After doing so, he may make a representation to the respondent for restoration of his said license. If such an application is made and if after inspection the respondent finds that the premises has been restored to its original position, they may consider restoration of license and pass appropriate order according to law. 8. Rule made absolute in terms aforesaid. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. A. BOBDE, J.)