Bombay High Court
Abdul Raheman S/O. Abdul Abbas Qureshi vs The Commissioner And Regional Director ... on 27 July, 2016
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp2269.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2269 OF 2016
Abdul Raheman S/o. Abdul Abbas Qureshi,
Proprietor Al-Quresh Kattalkhana, Kidwai
Ward, Desaiganj, Distt. Gadchiroli.
.... PETITIONER.
ig // VERSUS //
1. The Commissioner and Regional Director
of Municipal Administration, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2. Municipal Council, Desaiganj, Distt.
Gadchiroli, Through its Chief Officer.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri F.T.Mirza, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.D.Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri M. P. Khajanchi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 23:59:31 :::Judgment 2 wp2269.16.odt
3. The petitioner was granted licence for running a private slaughter house by the Municipal Council on 2 nd August, 2013 for two years.
The petitioner submitted an application dated 13 th August, 2015 for renewal of the licence. This application is rejected by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council on 17th August, 2015. The order of the Chief Officer was challenged by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965"). The respondent No.1-Regional Director has dismissed the revision application by the impugned order.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Officer has committed a gross error by rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of licence and the respondent No.1- Regional Director has also misconstrued the provisions of Section 267 of the Act of 1965 and the directives incorporated in the notification No.8 issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 4 th October, 2015. The learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 have made submissions on various points, however, the learned advocates and the learned A.G.P. do not dispute that the revision under Section 318 of the Act of 1965 is maintainable against the order passed by the Chief Officer.
5. On examining the impugned order, I find that the respondent No.1-Regional Director was reeling under the wrong impression that the ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 23:59:31 ::: Judgment 3 wp2269.16.odt revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Act of 1965 was not maintainable. The observations of the respondent No.1- Regional Director on merits of the matter are recorded under the erroneous presumption that the revision was not maintainable. Otherwise also the observations on merit are not sustainable as no reasons are recorded by the Regional Director.
As I propose to remit the matter to the respondent No.1- Regional Director for consideration afresh, I refrain myself from dealing with the submissions made by the learned advocates on merits of the matter. In my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice :
i) The impugned order passed by the Regional Director is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur Division, Nagpur for deciding the revision filed by the petitioner afresh.
iii) The Regional Director of Municipal Administration shall consider the submissions made by the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and decide the revision application on merits.
iv) The petitioner and the respondent No.2 shall appear before the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 22nd August, 2016 at 11.00 a.m. and abide by the further orders in the matter.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 23:59:31 :::
Judgment 4 wp2269.16.odt
v) The revision application shall be disposed by the
Regional Director till 30th September, 2016.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
ig JUDGE
RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 23:59:31 :::
Judgment 5 wp2269.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 02.08.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 23:59:31 :::