AMBIENCE HOSPITALITY SERVICES THROUGH SATISH RAGHUNATH SHETTYversusBRIHAN MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

                                                                                     (11)-WP-4379-26.doc

       PANCHAL

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
          Digitally
          signed by
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2026
          2026.09.28
          17:27:24
          +0530



                       Ambience Hospitality Services & Ors.            ...Petitioners
                            Versus
                       Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
                                                       ...
                       Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Kush Shah, Ms. Trupti Shetty, Ms.
                       Falak Doshi, Ms. Esha Shah & Mr. Prathamesh Kamat i/by
                       Trupti Shetty & Assoiates, for the Petitioners.
                       Ms. Dhruti Kapadia a/w Ms. K. H. Mastakar, for Respondent
                       Nos.1 & 2-BMC.
                       Mr. Anaush Daver a/w Mr. Kushan Kode & Mr. Devendra
                       Deolekar i/by Amar Legal Advocates, for Respondent Nos.3 &
                       4.
                       Dr. Pooja Desai, Medical Officer of Health (MOH), R/South
                       Ward, BMC Officer present in Court.
                                                      ...

                                      CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                              ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                         DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                       P.C.:

                       1.          The instant Writ Petition is preferred inter-alia with
                       following substantive reliefs :-

                            “(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
                            mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
                            appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
                            Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the
                            Notice bearing reference No.ACRS/316/MOH/DT.27.07.2026
                            issued by Respondent No.2 (Exhibit "A" hereto) and after
                            examining the legality, correctness and validity thereof, this
                            Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set-aside the same;
                            (b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
                            or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
                            order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                            for setting aside the Respondent No.2's decision of 'Not to
                            Renew the Petitioner No.1's Health License No.887304980;


                                                            1
                                                              (11)-WP-4379-26.doc


     (c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
     a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
     order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
     directing the Respondent No.2 to remove the remark 'Not to
     Renew' from the portal of BMC qua the Petitioner No.1's Health
     License No.887304980, permit the Petitioner No.1 to apply for
     renewal and process the online renewal application of the
     Petitioner No.1's Health License No.887304980 forthwith;”


2.           Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
said restaurant was running on the basis of a license in the
name of the Petitioners issued by the competent authority.
Thereafter, on, an online Application was also moved for
renewal of the same. However, the same was returned with a
remark 'not to renew' (Exh. O to the Petition) as per the online
portal.


3.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Alliance Restaurant and Bar Private Limited V. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.1, particularly on
paragraph no. 9 and 10 thereof, which for convenience, are
extracted below:

       "9. In paragraph 52 of the said decision in the case of Formac
       Engineering Limited (supra), this Court observed that the
       Municipal Authorities had no power to adjudicate on the issue of
       ownership or title in respect of the immoveable property, and
       therefore, merely because he owner or the landlord has raised
       an objection, the licence cannot be denied.
       10. The documents which are required to be produced in terms
       of the second paragraph of the said Circular are only for limited
       purposes of showing the physical possession of the applicant.
       Incidentally, the applicant may produce documents showing his
       title. The emphasis is on proving the applicant's possession and
       nothing more. It is obvious that while deciding the application
       for grant or renewal of licence under section 394, the Municipal
1 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6850


                                      2
                                                           (11)-WP-4379-26.doc


     Officer cannot decide whether the possession of the applicant is
     lawful or otherwise. The grant of a licence under section 394 to
     carry on trade does not confer any title on the applicant."



     Relying on the above decision, Mr. Tamboly would
impress upon the Court in support of his submissions which
has squarely covered the dispute and as such, he tried to
impress the Court that the dispute vis-a-vis the private parties
would not affect the right of the Petitioners, for renewal of the
license.



4.         At present, the Petitioners confine their relief to the
extent of an Application, which is stated to be pending with the
Respondent-BMC for renewal of a licence, to be processed, in
accordance with law.



5.         In case the already subsisting/pending Application
could not be processed, we leave it open to the Petitioners to
file a fresh Application, if the situation so warrants within one
week from the date of uploading this order.



6.         Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the
competent authority of the Respondent-Corporation shall
decide such Application for renewal of license expeditiously,
preferably within a period of          two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this Order by the Petitioners.



7.         With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition is


                                   3
                                                      (11)-WP-4379-26.doc


Disposed Of, without adverting on merits of the matter, which
are kept open to be decided in accordance with law.




[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                     [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                              4