IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2652 OF 2008 Mr. Kamal R. Khan ... Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader with Mr. N.P. Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.A. BOBDE , J. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER , 2008 P.C.: Notice. The learned Government Pleader accepts notice, waives service and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Challenge to the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that despite there being sufficient time and the fact that certification by the Central Board in issuance of the certificate of sensor on 23rd October, 2008, the respondent has passed the order intentionally at the eleventh hour causing serious prejudice to the petitioner without granting or hearing him or serving notice of any kind on the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the State contends that the principles of natural justice even if violated while invoking power of section 6(1) of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), then in the facts of the present case, a post-decisional hearing would satisfy the application of the maxim audi altem partem and, thus, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the merit or otherwise of the contentions raised in the present writ petition by the counsel appearing for the respective parties. Suffice it to note that counsel appearing for the State submits that they would hear the petitioner and petitioner may be directed to appear before the competent authority i.e. Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai tomorrow i.e. on 18th November, 2008 at 11.00 a.m. and the petitioner may raise all such objections as he wishes to raise. The authority would consider all the aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders by Thursday, 20th November, 2008. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, further submits that he would be willing to delete objectionable portion from the film whichever pointed out by the competent authority. We see no reason why the authority would not look into this aspect of the matter as well. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the statements made on behalf of the respective parties, we see no reason to keep this petition pending before this court. The same is disposed of. Parties would abide by their statements and the concerned authority shall pass order afresh in accordance with law by 20th November, 2008. Petitioner is obviously at liberty to challenge the said order if adverse to him. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 5. The counsel for the petitioner voluntarily submits that till the post decision date, the petitioner will not exhibit the film. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.