AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F. M. Reis, J
Heard Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 22.05.2002 passed by
the Respondents whereby the licence issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent dated 17.05.2002, came to be revoked.
Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has challenged the impugned Order essentially on the ground that the Respondents have no powers to issue such Order in exercise of its powers u/s 175 of the Municipalities Act as such powers are only reserved to the Council. Learned Counsel further pointed out that after issuance of the licence dated 17.05.2002 to the Petitioner, the Respondent was not entitled to revoke such licence without giving a show cause notice to the Petitioner and holding an inquiry. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Tribunal came to be erroneously rejected on the ground that the Appeal u/s 184(13) of the Municipalities Act was not maintainable. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Order as well as the licence granted and pointed out that when the licence fees were received by the Respondents, it was not open to the Respondents to revoke such licence without issuing a show cause notice. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2 pointed out that the licence relied upon by the Petitioner is to some construction/extension to the existing shop in a public open space. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is a specific condition in the licence to the effect that in case of any complaint with regard to such licence, the same would stand revoked. Learned Counsel has taken me through the licence issued by the Respondents and pointed out that in view of the said complaint, the Respondent was entitled in law to revoke such licence. Learned Counsel as such submits that considering the fact that the Petitioner has been occupying the said space despite of the fact that the licence came to be revoked way back in the year 2002, the question of invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not arise. Learned Counsel as such submits that the Petition be rejected.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record and on going through the licence issued in favour of the Petitioner, I find that there is a specific condition therein to the effect that in case of any complaint by any person, the licence would be liable to be revoked. It is not in dispute that after the licence was issued on 17.05.2002, a complaint came to be received from the Panjim Municipal Market Tenants Association, where the Petitioner also has his premises raising objection to such construction activity being carried out by the Petitioner. In view of the said complaint, the Respondent deem it fit to revoke the licence. Apart from that, on perusal of the Order of revocation dated 22.05.2002, there is a recital therein that the Petitioner was also heard when such Order was passed. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner was trying to dispute the correctness of such recital, the fact remains that on perusal of the Petition, there is no specific averment to the effect that such recital is not correct. Considering that the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has not disputed the fact that the space where the impugned licence was issued was a public open space, I find that no case is made out for any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because some licence has been issued subject to specific condition, would not by itself give a right to the Petitioner to occupy an open space and insist on an inquiry when admittedly an objection was raised by the said Associate. There is also no material in such circumstances to disclose that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice.
In the present case, there are no grounds for interference in the impugned Orders in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Petition stands dismissed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks stay of the Order
passed today. Taking note of the fact that the impugned structure/wall is in an open
space and on the basis of ad-interim Order, the Petitioner has continued to occupy such space, the prayer stands rejected.