(11)-WP-4379-26.doc PANCHAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4379 OF 2026 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 BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Digitally signed by BALAJI GOVINDRAO PANCHAL Date: 2026.09.28 17:27:24 +0530 (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