1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1802/2010. Ramdas Ramrao Parika -: versus :- Divisional Controller, MSRTC. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 03, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri M.G. Sarda, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel is seeking time to produce on record some documents to show that Standing Order dated 06.09.2000 issued vide No. 1199 on 03.03.2008 are binding on petitioner and hence, the licence fee increases 10% every year. He argues that after 1988 the petitioner has not paid licence fee as per this increase and hence there are arrears of about Rs. 36,82,348/- as on 31.03.2010. Shri Sarda, learned counsel for petitioner points out that thee is a written licence agreement between the parties and the licence fees of Rs. 8001/- per month + Rs.415/- towards water charges are being paid every 2 month. He states that petitioner is not in arrears of said amount. He further points out that the licence in the name of the petitioner is issued in the year 1988, while the Standing Order sought to be relied upon are issued in September, 2000. According to him petitioner is not party to this Standing Order and hence the same unilaterally cannot be accepted to have increased his licence fee. According to him the MSRTC has already filed proceedings under Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises Eviction Act and in those proceedings the question of arrears if any can be gone into. The Standing orders issued vide no. 1199 are not considered by the District Judge-1, Akola who has decided the appeal filed by the present respondent. It is to be noted that as per the licence and mutual obligation, the amount payable per month by petitioner does not exceed Rs. 8416/-. The Appellate Court has found petitioner to be in arrears of Rs. 31,78,673/-. The basis on which the amount of arrears is worked out is not clear. The Appellate Court has not recorded any finding that the Standing Order has the effect of modifying the contract between the petitioner and respondent, and petitioner has committed breach of that obligation by not paying the increased amount of licence fee. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that even if Shri Wankhede, learned counsel produces some document before this court, a dispute in relation to that document will be required to be resolved and that can be very conveniently done by the lower Appellate Court which has allowed the appeal filed by the 3 present respondent. Hence without recording any conclusion of finding in this respect, the controversy is left open for adjudication by the District Judge-1, Akola. The impugned order dated 08.04.2010 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in M.C.A.No. 13/2010 is restored back to file of that Court. Parties to appear before that Court on 07.06.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The said Court shall attempt to decide the appeal finally as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. With these directions, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.