1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.47 OF 1999 Hindustan Lever Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. The Deputy Director Fruit & Vegetable Preservation Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. V.R.Dhond i/b.Cr.Baylay & Crawford for the Petitioners. Mr. H.K.Vardhan with Mr.Kiran Kandpile for the Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH and R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. By this petition the Petitioner challenges two communications, first communication is dated 11th December, 1998 and the second communication dated 5th January, 1999. 2 2. By these communications, firstly Petitioner has been directed not to manufacture any item under a license which is issued in the name of old company till the fresh license in the name of new company is taken. Secondly, the Petitioner has been asked not to take up manufacturing of the items in new location, unless a license is obtained in relation to the new location. Thirdly, the Respondents have directed that the “Skippy Jelly Bites” which the Petitioner was manufacturing at that time should not be manufactured by the Petitioner without obtaining license under The Fruit Products Order, 1955. So far as the first question is concerned, it is clear from the record that there was no new company and old company. The company continues to be the same, there is only change of name and now even the license has been amended and it has been issued under the changed name of the company. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated before us that the Petitioner will not start manufacturing of any fruit items in relation to which the Petitioner has been granted the license, without getting a license in relation to the new premises. The statement is accepted. The learned 3 counsel appearing for Petitioner further stated before us that the Petitioner has stopped manufacturing “Skippy Jelly Bites” since 2001 and that in case the Petitioner wants to take up manufacturing Skippy Jelly Bites again, it will not do so unless it gives notice of its intent to start manufacturing Skippy Jelly Bite to Respondent No.1 informing that it intends to commence manufacturing of Skippy Jelly Bites. The statements are accepted. In the light of the above statements Writ Petition is disposed off in the following terms. In case the Petitioner wants to commence manufacturing of “Skippy Jelly Bite” it will not do so without giving three months prior notice to Respondent No.1 informing the Respondent No.1 of its intent to commence manufacturing of “Skippy Jelly Bite”. In that event, Respondent No.1 shall after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, decide the question whether “Skippy Jelly Bite” which the Petitioner intends to manufacture is a fruit product within the meaning of Fruit Products Order, 1955 or not. In case the Respondent decides that “Skippy Jelly Bites” is a fruit products within the meaning of the Order and obtaining a license for manufacturing it is necessary, the Petitioner shall commence manufacturing of 4 “Skippy Jelly Bite” only after taking necessary license subject to its rights to challenge the order of Respondent No.1. The Petition is disposed of. 5. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)