1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.189 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2797 OF 200 Mr.Bhagatsingh S/o Indersingh Shinde Age : Years,Occu: Business, R/o : Sarkhani Phata, Tq. Kinwat, Dist.: Nanded. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS 1) Smt. Indira Subhash Jaiswal, Age : 55 years,Occu.Business, R/o Sarkhani Phata, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. And others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. R,F.Totala,Advocate for Appellant. Shri. P.V.Mandlik,Sr.Counsel instructed by Shri. Amol S.Gandhi,Advocate for Resp.No.1. Shri. S.D.Kaldate, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos 2 to 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Totala, learned counsel appearing for the 2 appellant submits that the order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge (CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.) is erroneous, perverse as appellant had demonstrated that the respondent Smt. Indira Subhash Jaiswal played fraud on the Court and suppressed the material facts and mislead the Court and authorities concerned. 3. The learned counsel has referred to the Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules (Rule 24(5)), and submitted that the Police report and Gram Panchayat resolution dis-entitles the respondent to shift her liquor shop from village Hadsani to village Sarkhai, Tq. Kinwat. The counsel further submits that distance between the liquor license shop run by the appellant and respondent is about 175 meter, when the law requires distance about 200 meters. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the matter S.P.Chjengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. And others reported in 1994 S.C.853. 3 4. Mr.Mandlik, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. The counsel further submits that interim relief was granted on 31st March, 2010 by the learned Single Judge, after hearing contesting parties admitted the petition and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause ”D”. 5. We have perused the prayer clause ”D”. The petitioner had prayed for allowing her to run liquor shop at Sarkhani Phata, Tq. Kinwat. 6. We have perused the various orders passed by the Authorities, Hon’ble Minister and learned Single Judge of this Court. We have also perused the Judgment cited supra and the relevant Rules. We have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is filed against the grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause-D. The Writ Petition was already admitted by the learned 4 Single Judge. 7. At this stage, in view of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the appellant could be addressed at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. Considering the prima facie case, the learned Single decided to grant interim relief in favour of the respondent, who was running liquor shop since the year 2006, though according to the learned counsel for the appellant for a few days shop was closed by the Authorities. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal. The same is dismissed. The dismissal of the Letters Patent appeal shall not affect the merits of the proceeding of Writ Petition, which is already admitted by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK