:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS EXTRA-ORDINARY AND INHERENT JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO.2603 OF 2008 Manda Ashok Patliputra (M/s.Hotel Amrapali) ..Petitioner. Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents. Ms.Veena Thadani for the Petitioner. Ms.Smita Gaidhani, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2 State. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : In the facts of this case, it is not possible to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction regarding the quantum of punishment. 2. The submission that the impugned order merely repeats the earlier order which was set aside by this Court with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment, is not well founded. In the impugned order it was recorded that the Petitioner does not appear to have any respect for law. Nor does he have any fear of the law. The Petitioner :2: has violated the rules on several occasions in the past. 3. On merits, it has already been held by the order and judgment of A.M.Khanwilkar, J. dated 21.2.2008 in Writ Petition No.370 of 2008 that the Petitioner had committed a breach of the licence permission. The learned Judge directed the Appellate Authority only to consider the issue of justness and proportionality of the length of suspension of licence. 4. In the circumstances of the case, it is not open for me to substitute the period of punishment. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ***