B SHIVARAM G SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two Writ Petitions. The first Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 11.4.1988 in C.C.No.1079/MF of 1986 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile Parle, Bombay. The second Writ Petition is directed against the order of issue of process in C.C.No.1980/ MF/86 to C.C.No.1988/MF/1986 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile Parle, Bombay. Heard both sides.

(2.) THE Petitioner is common to both the cases. THE Petitioner is running a hotel called "Hotel Dwaraka" at Borivli, Bombay. A representative of the Bombay Municipal Corporation visited the hotel on number of days and found that he was running a grinding machine in the hotel without obtaining necessary permission from the Corporation as required under Section 390 of the Bombay Municipal corporation Act. ("the Act") Ten complaints were filed against the Petitioner by the Corporation in respect of the same hotel for different dates of visits by the Corporation officials. In one case, the Petitioner filed an application for discharge on the ground that no offence is made out under Section 390 of the Act. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate rejected the application of Petitioner. That order is being challenged in the first Writ Petition. In the other Writ Petition the issue of process in remaining 9 cases has been challenged.

(3.) ACCORDING to Section 390 of the Act, no person shall newly establish in any premises any factory, workshop or work-place in which it is intended that steam, water, electrical or other mechanical power shall be employed, without the previous written permission of the Commissioner. The question is whether the Petitioner has been running a factory in the premises where he is running a hotel. ACCORDING to the prosecution, There is a grinding machine in the hotel with a power load of 15 H.P. and odd and therefore it demands the use of electrical power in the hotel and therefore, it amounts to running a factory and then special permission is required under Section 390 of the Act. Admittedly, no such permission is taken. Hence it was argued that the accused has violated the provisions of Section 390 of the Act which is made punishable under Section 475 of the Act.