Judgment (1) By way of the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.04.2011 passed by res. No.2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamnagar, as well as order dated 24/25.01.2012 passed by res. No.1 District Magistrate, Jamnagar in appeal being No. Manar Appeal 1/2011. (2) The facts of the case which can be culled out from the petition are that the petitioner is the occupier of the premises situated in Paras Society, Jamnagar City, and is as such the tenant of the said premises. That the petitioner and his mother were running a hotel in the name and style of Ravi Residency and a restaurant viz. Tirth Restaurant in the said premises. That the mother of the petitioner was granted license under the provisions of Section 33(1)(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for running and operating the said restaurant on 16.07.2002. That the petitioner was also granted license to run and operate hotel in the name and style of Ravi Residency on the same day. Similarly, the petitioner was also granted license to run and operate the hotel under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 since 2002 by the local authority. (3) Record further reveals that due to oversight the license of the hotel could not be renewed and therefore the petitioner applied for renewal of the license by making application dated 27.01.2007, which came to be rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 07.04.2007 (at Annexure-E). The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the appellate forum and by order dated 05.05.2008 proceedings of the application dated 27.01.2007 filed by the petitioner were remanded for re-consideration. It is matter of record that the petitioner was heard again by respondent No.2, which culminated into the impugned order dated 28.04.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal being No. Manar Appeal 1/2011 before respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Jamnagar, which came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 24/25.01.2012. Hence, the present petition. (4) Heard Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred appeal being No. Manar Appeal 1/2011 before respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Jamnagar, which came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 24/25.01.2012. Hence, the present petition. (4) Heard Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. (5) Learned advocate for the petitioner mainly contended that as per the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) as applicable now, provisions of Regulation No.12.2 would apply to the case of the petitioner, which provides that if the premises abuts upon the road, which has width of 15 mtrs. to 24 mtrs. use of the same is permissible for commercial development on ground floor and first floor. It is submitted that the reference made by both the authorities upon Regulation No.11.2.1(1) is the regulation of the final development plan, which is substituted by the new development plan. It is further submitted that as pointed out earlier the petitioner has been running hotel in the name and style of Ravi Residency since 2002 and only on account of oversight of the petitioner, the renewal was not applied in time. It is further submitted that the impugned orders are passed under provisions of the Act, which are not applicable as on date. It is also pointed out that even as per the earlier regulations, the petitioner was entitled to renewal of license as even the old Regulation No.11.2.1 prescribes for college, restaurant, lodging and boarding house for students, hospital, nursing home, polyclinic, lecture hall, community hall, town hall, auditorium, art gallery, court building, shopping center and commercial use etc. On the basis of the aforesaid therefore it is contended that the impugned orders are bad and the petitioner is entitled to the renewal of license. It is further pointed out that even under the provisions of Section 33(1)(w) of the Bombay Police Act, the petitioner is not an unfit person, who can be denied the license under the said Act. It is also contended that even the local authority viz. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation charges commercial rate of tax considering it to be a hotel. It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. (6) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has supported the impugned orders. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation charges commercial rate of tax considering it to be a hotel. It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. (6) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has supported the impugned orders. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has considered the provisions of 11.2.1 (1) of the GDCR, which prescribes that in order to run a hotel the road width has to be 24 mtrs., whereas in the instant case road width is 21.33 mtrs. It is also pointed out that the impugned orders are passed on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. It is therefore submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. No other and/or further submissions are made by learned counsel for the parties. (7) On perusal of the impugned orders it transpires that the only reason, which is given by the authorities is that the premises in question where the petitioner runs a hotel abuts on the road, which is the road width of less than 24 mtrs. And therefore as per the Regulation 11.2.1.(1) of the GDCR the petitioner cannot be permitted to run a hotel. The same reason has been upheld by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 24/25.01.2012. (8) It may be noted that by the additional affidavit the petitioner has brought on record the 2nd Revised Draft Development Plan for Jamagar Area Development Authority (JADA), which includes the area of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation wherein Regulation 12.2 prescribes as under: TABLE ROAD WIDTH FLOOR FOR COMMERCIAL USE 1) Below 9 Mts. Nil 2) 9 mts. and less than 15 mt. Ground Floor 3) 15 Mts. & below 24 mt. Ground & First Floor 4) 24 Mts. and above All Floors It also transpires from the further affidavit filed by the petitioner that the respondent authorities have given permission to similarly situated persons in the city of Jamnagar. (9) In view of the fact that the new development regulations apply to the case of the petitioner, the application of the petitioner dated 27.01.2007 is required to be reconsidered now in light of the new development regulations, which are in force as on date. (9) In view of the fact that the new development regulations apply to the case of the petitioner, the application of the petitioner dated 27.01.2007 is required to be reconsidered now in light of the new development regulations, which are in force as on date. In view of the aforesaid development the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order should have considered the said change in the regulations. Consequently, both the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings of the application for renewal of the license dated 27.01.2007 filed by the petitioner stands restored to file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamnagar or any other competent authority/licensing authority. Such authority shall call for a fresh report from the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation as well as Jamagar Area Development Authority within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the receipt of this order. It would be open for the petitioner to file fresh submission before the said authority by 30.05.2014 and the said authority shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order on the application of the petitioner dated 27.01.2007 for renewal of the license, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, more particularly the regulations that are applicable as on date. (10) It is however made clear that the licensing authority shall reconsider the issue afresh on its own merits, as per the observations made by this Court, without in any manner being influenced by the impugned orders as well as by this order. Such exercise shall be carried out on or before 31.07.2014. (11) Petition is allowed accordingly. RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.