( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2009 Smt.Prabhavati S.Shetty .. Petitioner V/s The Collector, Mumbai Suburbs, & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Pitre for the petitioner. Mr.Sameer Patil, AGP for the State. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. (Vacation Judge) (Vacation Judge) (Vacation Judge) DATE : 21ST MAY, 2009. DATE : 21ST MAY, 2009. DATE : 21ST MAY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Petitioner challenges the order dated May 12, 2009 passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburbs, Mumbai directing the petitioner to stop use of the entire restaurant and the permit room. 2. The husband of the petitioner - Shri.Sadashiv H.Shetty since deceased was granted licence, being Foreign Liquor F.L.-3 bearing No.840 sometime in the year 1998 by the office of the 2nd Respondent - State Excise Department. The said licence was renewed from time to time. On April 19, 2006 the said Sadashiv Shetty died. However, the heirs and legal representatives of the said Sadashiv Shetty did not apply for transfer of licence in their names. 3. The Petitioner contends that the show cause notice was issued by the Collector, Mumbai Suburbs on April 22, 2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within a ( 2 ) period of 15 days as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner in respect of renewal of licence or suspension or revocation of licence. The Petitioner gave reply which was received by the Department on May 6, 2009. By the impugned order dated May 12, 2009 the Collector, Mumbai Suburbs rejected the request made by the petitioner for transferring licence in her name and also directed to stop the use of entire restaurant and permit room. 4. Mr.Pitre, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing. 5. As against this, the learnd AGP Mr.Sameer Patil submitted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal u/s.137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, and since the petitioner has already exhausted eqully efficacious alternate remedy, the present petition is not maintainable. 6. As the petitioner has already availed of statutory remedy by filing the appeal, as aforesaid, in my opinion, this is not the fit case to entertain this petition on merits. I directed the learned AGP to ( 3 ) obtain instructions from the Appellate Authority as to within what time the stay application of the petitioner will be heard and decided. After obtaining instructions, learned AGP made a statement that within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court the Appellate Authority will hear and decide the stay application filed by the petitioner. 7. In view of this, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise decides the stay application preferred by the petitioner in pending appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Hence I direct the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to hear and decide the stay application filed by the petitioner in pending appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferrably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 8. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)