Bombay High CourtWP/1626/2017disposedoff

Rajashri Ramdas Pund v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, State Excise Department, Mumbai And Others

2019-03-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp1626.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1626 OF 2017 (RAJASHRI RAMDAS PUND....VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.G.Jagtap, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms Shamsi Haider, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MARCH 01, 2019.

Heard.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Collector by which the application submitted by the petitioner for transfer of his business (CL-III licence) is rejected. During pendency of this petition, the petitioner had made representation to the Collector on which a decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner on 11th July 2017. The petitioner is permitted to shift his business (CL-III licence) to Mouza : Pimpri (Gondwana), Tahsil : Hingna, District : Nagpur on certain conditions. Undisputedly, the petitioner is running business as per this permission at Mouza : Pimpri (Gondwana).

In view of the above subsequent events and as the grievance of the petitioner does not survive at this stage, in my view, the challenges in the petition are rendered infructuous.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that in the same matter pending

2 wp1626.17 before the State Government some adverse orders may be passed against the petitioner. If it so happens, needless to say that it being fresh cause of action, the petitioner can always challenge the adverse order, if passed against the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE RRaut..