-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1095 of 2006 Pramod Suryaji Kharade ..Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri D.B.Sawant for petitioner. Miss.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Shri A.M.Kulkarni for respondent no.5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 29th January, 2008 29th January, 2008 29th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on board. 2. This petition was placed before me and the parties informed that they have settled their dispute. Accordingly, time was sought to tender the consent terms. The dispute pertains to the benefits of liquor licence. Now, although, respondent no.2 has directed that the licence be transferred in favour of respondent no.5, respondent no.5 has stated before me that he is not in a position to carry on the business. He is not interested in pressing his application for transfer of licence in his name. The order granting transfer in his favour has been stayed -2- by this Court. In such circumstances, both sides have resolved their dispute and accordingly respondent no.5 relinquished the claim and it is agreed that the order dated 28th December, 2005 challenging this petition be quashed and set aside. The application for transfer filed by respondent no.5 is dismissed. 3. The consent terms recording the above settlement, signed by the petitioner and respondent no.5 and their Advocates taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the authorities under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In such circumstances, and when no relief is claimed against them, the petition stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms at X. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)