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 ____________________________________________________________ Ms.Fereshte Sethna a/w Mr.Mohit Tiwari, Ms.Naomi Ting and 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, 39th 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 7th October 2016 remanding back the matter for passing appropriate order. 3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant that NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.02.27 12:21:32 +0530 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 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 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.)