Bombay High Court
KRISHNAN PADMADASversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The canteen does not fall within the definition of an "eating house" under Section 3(ff) of the MMC Act, and the issue process order is therefore invalid and quashed.
Summary
The applicant, Krishnan Padmadas, operated a staff canteen for Tata Consultancy Services employees within the TCS premises, which was not open to the general public. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued an issue process order under Section 394(1)(e) read with Section 471 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, alleging the canteen was an "eating house" requiring a licence under Section 3(ff). The corporation failed to produce evidence that the canteen admitted the public or operated for profit. The High Court held that without such proof, the canteen could not be classified as an eating house and the corporation’s notice was insufficient. Consequently, the court allowed the applicant’s application and quashed the issue process order.
Issues considered
- Whether the staff canteen constitutes an "eating house" within the meaning of Section 3(ff) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
- Whether the Municipal Corporation complied with the evidentiary burden when issuing an issue process order under Section 394(1)(e) and Section 471 of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 394(1)(e), 3(ff), 471
Subjects
- eating house
- municipal corporation act
- licence
- canteen
- public access
- profit
- issue process order
- quash
Judgment
1-APL-795-2018.doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.795 OF 2018
Krishnan Padmadas … Applicant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Anr. … Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
NILAM by NILAM
SANTOSH Ms.Fereshte Sethna a/w Mr.Mohit Tiwari, Ms.Naomi Ting and
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.27
12:21:32 +0530 Ms.Sushmita Chauhan i/b DMD Advocates, for the Applicant.
Mr.P.P. Chavan i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi, for Respondent No.1-MCGM.
Mr.S.S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for
Respondent-MCGM and learned APP.
2. The challenge in this Application is the issue process order
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 39 th Court, Vile Parle,
Mumbai under Section 394(1)(e) read with Section 471 of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC’ for short) and order passed by
learned Sessions Court dated 7 th October 2016 remanding back the matter
for passing appropriate order.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that
Page 1 of 4
1-APL-795-2018.doc
N.S.Kamble
subject canteen was not open to the members of the general public and
merely providing subsidized food to employees of the Tata Consultancy
Services Limited (‘TCS’ for short), through its catering service provider does
not constitute the offence alleged. The learned counsel further submitted
that the staff canteen was a welfare non-profit measure for employees of
TCS. There is neither any element of trade or profit involved in the subject
staff canteen nor is the canteen capable of being classified as an eating house
which would attract provisions of the Act. The learned Magistrate and
learned Sessions Court erred in failing to appreciate the allegations against
the Applicant and requested to allow the Application.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant relied on Sohrab Vakil
(Lt.Col.) and Anr V/s. B.G. Pimple & Anr.1
5. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent-
Corporation that admittedly the Applicant was running canteen, it requires
‘eating house license’, as the said canteen was providing foods to the
customers. The food supplied for consumption in the TCS premises were
for the Applicants gains and profit. Therefore, the canteen falls under the
expression under Section 3(ff) of the MMC Act and requested to reject the
Application.
6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
1 1992 Mh.L.J. 1498
Page 2 of 4
1-APL-795-2018.doc
N.S.Kamble
7. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
Applicant runs canteen for their employees and no private person was
allowed to use the said canteen. It is Respondent’s-Corporation’s case that
no evidence produced on record that the said canteen was not used for profit
or gain.
8. Section 3(ff) of the MMC Act reads thus :
"eating-house" means any premises to which the Public are admitted
and where food is prepared or supplied for consumption on the
premises for profit or gain of any person owning or managing the
premises.
This Section provides that eating house means where public are
admitted and consumption of food is for profit and gain.
9. In my view, if the Corporation gives the notice under particular
sections for violation of any provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, it
is duty of the Corporation to point out the violation. It is alleged that the
said canteen was used for access to general public and for profit or gain, the
Corporation Authority should have placed evidence in that regard on
record, but it is not placed. Mere issuance of notice is not sufficient, it is
specific case of the Applicant that, the said canteen was used for their staff
and it was situated in the premises of the TCS, Banyan Park. It was not in
public place, but these facts are not considered by the learned Magistrate
and learned Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court has remanded the
Page 3 of 4
1-APL-795-2018.doc
N.S.Kamble
matter for fresh consideration, which is perverse and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The issue process order passed against the Applicant
is quashed and set aside.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…