A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The petitioner is occupying the premises within the municipal limits of Navsari Nagarpalika, the respondent herein, and is carrying on his business of cotton ginning and manufacturing of mattresses by manual labour. His business premises had caught fire some time back. The premies required repairs. He submitted an application for granting permission for carrying out the repairs. The said application was submitted to the respondent Municipality on February 13, 1984. The respondent Municipality informed the petitioner that his application will be filed if he failed to obtain and produce the consent of the landlord for carrying out the repairs, within seven days. The aforesaid intimation was given to the petitioner on March 9, 1984. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this High Court praying that the intimation given by the Municipality, produced at Annexure-B to the petition, be quashed and set aside and the Municipality be directed to grant the application of the petitioner.
2. It is obvious that the insistence on the consent of the landlord is extraneous and irrelevant. No provision of law has been pointed out to me on the basis of which the Municipality can insist for such a consent and say that only after production of such consent, necessary permission for carrying out the repairs will be granted. Therefore, the decision of the Chief Officer of the respondent Nagarpalika produced at Annexure-B has got to be quashed and set aside.
3. In the result the decision contained in annexure-B dated March 9, 1984 is quashed and set aside. The respondent Municipality is directed to consider the application as annexure-A afresh and decide the same in accordance with law, on or before November 5, 1984.
4. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.