1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3098 OF 2010 M/s. G. M. Breweries Ltd. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION 2272 OF 2010 M/s. ABD Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. D. B. Savant for Petitioners. Mr. V. S. Gokhale – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 15, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents – State. 2. The writ petitions are directed against the communications dated 2nd 2 March, 2010 and 9th March, 2010 issued by the Dy. Superintendent State Excise – respondent no. 4 in view of the Order passed by this Court dated 26th August 2009 in bunch of writ petitions whereby civil applications moved in the said petitions were allowed with directions that the respondents companies including the petitioners companies herein to deposit 50% of the demand amount within eight weeks from the date of the Order i.e. 26th August 2009 and they shall continue to do so in future as well. 3. It is not in dispute that the present impugned communications are issued by the respondent no.4 in view of the interim Order dated 26th August 2009 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions, whose numbers are reflected in Exhibits ‘I’ and ‘J’ to the present petitions, since the petitioners failed to deposit 50% of the demand amount within a stipulated period of eights weeks as directed vide the said Order dated 26th August, 2009. 4. It is therefore evident that the cause of action in the present petitions is not an independent and the impugned communications, is the incidental action initiated by the respondent no. 4 completely based on the directions issued by this Court vide Order dated 26th August 2009. It is in these circumstances it will be appropriate for the petitioners to file a proper application in writ petition no. 2454 of 2002 and writ petition No. 1375 of 3 2003 respectively for modification or clarification of the Order dated 26th August 2009. 5. In the circumstances, we dispose of both the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps as observed by us in the present order. The counsel for the petitioners prays that for a period of two weeks the respondents may be directed not to take coercive action of recovery. Request granted. Interim order shall automatically cease to operate after the expiry of two weeks from today. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)