1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6130 OF 2009 Manmath s/o Yashwantrao Patil - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SB Gastgar,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.VD Rakh, AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 4; Mr.RR Suryawanshi, Advocate for Resp.No.5. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 7th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner's contention is that this is a public interest litigation and respondent no.5 is illegally running a saw mill, which is very close to the residential place of the petitioner and it is causing nuisance to him. The petitioner has submitted various representations to the authorities raising objections as regards illegal transfer of license of the saw mill in 2 favour of the respondent no.5, but according to the petitioner, the authorities did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner. 3) Learned Counsel for the Respondent no.5 submits that the petitioner is cousin brother of respondent no.5 and earlier he was also running a saw-mill, but later on he sold the same to a person residing at Gangakhed. 4) The impugned order is dated 18th August, 2006 while the petition is filed on 2.8.2009. 5) We have heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. Strictly speaking, we do not find that the petitioner is espousing public cause in this petition. 6) The authorities have conducted an independent inquiry as regard the running of the saw mill by the Respondent no.5; transfer of the license in his favour and the objections raised by the petitioner, and the authorities have satisfied that no illegalities were noticed. 7) If in future any illegalities are noticed by the authorities, they would take 3 appropriate action as per the law. 8) With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 9) In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioner to get refund of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand), which was deposited by him in this Court consequent to the orders of this Court. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp6130.09