.[1]. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1315 OF 2000 M/s.Candy Wines & Stores ...Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. ...Respondents. ... ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1317 OF 2000 Mr.Dinesh G. Tahiliani ...Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. ...Respondents. .... ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1318 OF 2000 Mr.Dinesh G. Tahiliani ...Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Santosh Patil i/b. Mr.D.B.Savant and R.J.Deokar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.M.D.Naik, A.G.P., for the State-Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .... CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. .[2]. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2006. NOVEMBER 17, 2006. NOVEMBER 17, 2006. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State categorically state that the issue involved in the above Petition was squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment against the petitioners in the case of Government of Government of Government of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. M/s. Deokar’s Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. M/s. Deokar’s Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. M/s. Deokar’s Distillery, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1216 Distillery, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1216 Distillery, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1216. In view thereof, Rule stands discharged. [DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]