SAS 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.5169 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5169 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5169 OF 2008 Shri Ananda Nana Thombare ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.A.Sawant with Sachin Kadam for petitioner. Ms.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The petitioner is running a eating house in the name and style of "Hotel Suhas" situate at Solapur-Pune road, Kasurdi, Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune. The petitioner made an application on 16/10/2006 to 3rd respondent requesting him to allow the petitioner to keep his hotel open for 24 hours as it is situated on Solapur-Pune Highway. Our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to letter dated 24/1/2007 sent by Tahsildar, Daund stating that after perusing the papers submitted by the petitioner and after going through the enquiry report of the Circle Officer, it appears that the petitioner can be granted - = : 2 : = - the said permission. Guidance was sought from the Collector as to whether the permission should be granted or not because this issue is not clear from the provisions of section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. We are informed that the Collector has not responded to the said letter of the Tahsildar. 2. Surprisingly, on 3/3/2008, Tahsildar, Daund informed the petitioner that his application has been enquired into and his application for keeping the eating house open for 24 hours is rejected because section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is not clear on this aspect. We have not understood as to how the Tahsildar who had expressed that the permission should be granted has subsequently rejected the application by writing a cryptic letter to the petitioner. It is not known whether the Collector, Pune has answered the query of Tahsildar, Daund made vide letter dated 24/1/2007 because there is no indication about it in the Tahsildar’s letter dated 3/3/2008. In the circumstances, we feel that the Collector, Pune should consider the petitioner’s request afresh having regard to the relevant provisions and pass appropriate reasoned order either granting the permission or rejecting the permission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states - = : 3 : = - that such an application will be addressed to the Collector within a period of 2 weeks. We direct that if such an application is made, the Collector, Pune shall consider it in accordance with law and communicate the result thereof to the petitioner. The Collector shall consider the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of such an application by him and the result be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of decision of the Collector. 4. Needless to state that the Collector shall decide the issue independently and in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not considered the petitioner’s case on merits. 5. Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms with no order as to costs. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)