1 W.P.No.7660/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7660 OF 2011. Bhartiya Krida Sanstha, Jalgaon 305, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon through its President Narayandas S/o Mohanlal Zawar, Age 86 years, Occ.Business, R/o 305, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Superintendent of Police Police Head Quarters Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon. 2. The Police Inspector, City Police Station, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. 2 W.P.No.7660/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit before the trial Court, seeking injunction against the Respondents from interfering and obstructing in their activities. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed application Exh.6 for temporary injunction. The same was allowed and the Respondents were restrained from causing any obstruction or interference without following due process of law. The Respondents challenged the said order in appeal. The appeal was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present petition. 4. The case of the petitioner is that it is duly registered trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, so also under the Societies 3 W.P.No.7660/11 Registration Act and have been granted the necessary license for conducting indoor and outdoor games including playing of cards. The petitioners were threatened by the authorities, as such the suit was filed. The trial Court granted injunction restraining the Respondents from obstructing the petitioner without due process of law. The District Court without discussing all the aspects of the matter, allowed appeal and set aside the judgment. 5. Mr.Phatake, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader submits that the District Court has rightly passed the order, as the order passed by the trial Court below Exh.6 eroded on the rights of the Respondents to take action. 6. The order passed by the trial Court was not an order granting blanket injunction to the petitioner. The same restrained the Respondents from obstructing the petitioner without following due process of law. If any illegal activity is conducted by the petitioner in that circumstances, the Respondents had every right to 4 W.P.No.7660/11 take action as per the order passed by the trial Court. 7. In light of the above, I pass the following order : (i) The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are restrained from obstructing the petitioner to carry out its activities as per license. If the Respondents notice any illegality in the activities of the petitioner then they are at liberty to initiate appropriate action as available in the law by following proper procedure. (ii) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possibleand preferably within a period of six (6) months. (iii) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp766011 5 W.P.No.7660/11