1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.649 OF 2010 Smt.Shama Datta Meghe .. Appellant (org.plaintiff) V/s Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents (org.Defendant) Mr.R.A.Thorat with Mr.S.M.Mirajkar i/by Mr.Gabrial Pillai for the Appellant. Mr.J.J.Xavier for Respondents. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 20th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Thorat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Xavier, learned counsel for the Respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st May, 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court whereby the Notice of Motion No.692 of 2010 taken out by the Appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. Mr.Thorat submitted that Respondent No.1-Corporation issued show cause notice on 1st October, 2009 calling upon the plaintiff to submit explanation within two days, failing which licence in favour of the plaintiff would be treated as cancelled. After receipt of show cause notice, plaintiff gave detailed reply on 20th October, 2009. In the reply, plaintiff specifically requested for personal hearing before taking any action as proposed in the show cause notice dated 1st October, 2009. 3. The 1st Respondent -Corporation thereafter passed an order dated 18th January, 2010 informing plaintiff that plaintiff’s licence of health department has been cancelled. Pursuant to that order, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is not carrying on the business. Perusal of this 2 order indicates that no reasons are assigned for cancelling the licence issued in favour of the plaintiff. Though plaintiff gave a detailed reply and sought personal hearing, 1st Respondent-Corporation did not hear plaintiff. Thus the order dated 18th January, 2010 suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. When the 1st Respondent-Corporation proposes to cancel the licence issued in favour of the plaintiff and seeks his explanation, least that can be expected from the 1st Respondent is to hear the plaintiff after receipt of reply. In the instant case though plaintiff gave a detailed reply, no reasons are given in the order dated 18th January, 2010 for cancelling the licence. On this short count alone, the order dated 18th January, 2010 deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr.Xavier submits that on the basis of show cause notice dated 1st October, 2009 and the reply dated 20th October, 2009 of the plaintiff, the Corporation will hear plaintiff as also complainant Rajesh Kothari. He submits that it is also necessary to hear Krishna Worli Sagar Co- operative Housing Society. He further submits that Respondent No.2, Medical Officer of Health will hear plaintiff, complainant-Rajesh Kothari and said Krishna Worli Sagar Co-operative Housing Society and will take a decision within four weeks from today. 5. Plaintiff, complainant-Rajesh Kothari and the Krishna Worli Sagar Co- operative Housing Society will be at liberty to produce the relevant documents before the 2nd Respondent, Medical Officer of Health. 6. It is made clear that in case the order of the 2nd Respondent is adverse to plaintiff, plaintiff will be at liberty to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 7. In view of this, nothing further survives in the suit. Suit stands disposed of with liberty to plaintiff as aforesaid. Appeal from order stands allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 8. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, no orders are necessary in the 3 Civil Application No.1020 of 2010 and the same stands disposed of. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)