Bombay High Court
WP/519/2003 of W.H. RIZVI, PONDA-GOA. Vs TOYO LABORATORIES PVT.LTD., AND 8 ORS., on 9 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 519 OF 2003 W.H. RIZVI, PONDA-GOA. ....Petitioners Versus TOYO LABORATORIES PVT.LTD., AND 8 ....Respondents ORS., MR.A.F.DINIZ,MR.S.S.KANTAK,R.1 Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. Date:- 9th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard both sides. The main
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 519 OF 2003
W.H. RIZVI, PONDA-GOA.
Versus
....Petitioners
TOYO LABORATORIES PVT.LTD., AND 8 ORS.,
....Respondents
MR.A.F.DINIZ,MR.S.S.KANTAK,R.1
-Coram:A.M.KHANWILKAR &P. V. HARDAS, JJ.-Date:9th December, 2003
P.C.:
Heard both sides. The main grievancemade in this petition is that therespondent no.2 has issued licence infavour of respondent no.1 to carry oncommercial/production activities in thebuilding, which is essentially in theresidential zone, which isimpermissible in law. The respondentno.2 has filed an affidavit and hasasserted that the said building is nowfalling within the commercial zone, asper the new zoning. Besides theaffidavit, records have been producedbefore us to support this assertion. Inview of this, the grievance of thepetitioner that the building is in theresidential zone is no longer availableto the petitioner. If there is any othergrievance, it will be open for the petitioner to agitate the same beforethe respondent no.2 before issuance ofrenewal licence in favour of respondentno.1 in or around March 2004. Petitionerto make a representation and/or fileobjection before the end of February2004, which be considered by therespondent no.2 before renewal oflicence in favour of respondent no.1 inMarch 2004. Petitioner in addition tofiling the representation before therespondent no.2 shall also furnish acopy thereof to the respondent no.1, sothat respondent no.1 may offerappropriate explanation, if any. Withthese observations the petition isdisposed of.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.P. V. HARDAS, J.