RUSHABH OUTDOORS AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

WP-227-2027.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2017 1. Rushabh Outdoors, Thane ] 2. Vandana Borse, ] Proprietor of M/s. Synnovation, Mumbai ] .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] 2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ] .. Respondents Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aseem Naphade, Mr. Akash Rebello, Mr. Jatin Sheth, Ms. Chaitra Rao and Ms. Meera Parmar, Advocates for the Petitioners. Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. Milind V. More, Additional Government Pleader and Mr. Jay Sanklecha, “B” Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra. Mr. Suresh B. Pakale, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. H. Mastakar i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocates for Respondent No.2-MCGM. CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. Reserved on : 16th December 2025. Pronounced on : 06th April 2026 JUDGMENT Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, C.J. : M/s. Rushabh Outdoors which is a partnership firm and represented through its partners, namely, Navnit Haria and Zaverben Liladhar Haria is joined by the proprietress of M/s. Synnovation, namely, Vandana Borse in laying a challenge to sub- section (2) of section 479 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 18881. The petitioners are seeking a declaration that sub- section (2) of section 479 of the MMC Act is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. They are aggrieved by Resolution No.999 passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in its meeting held on 11th December 2009 by which a revision in the schedule of fees for the advertisement license issued under 1 MMC Act 1 Panchal WP-227-2027.doc sections 328 and 328A of the MMC Act was approved and increased by 80 percent of the prevailing rate for one year and then it i