1 Wp7558n7559.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7558 OF 2010 Omprakash Nanikaram Vaswani. .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- AND WRIT PETITION NO.7559 OF 2010 Shri Ramesh S. Alva. .. Respondent Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.D. Soni i/by Ram & Co. for the Petitioner in both the Petitions. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in both the petitions. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C: . Rule in both the Petitions. The learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that an application made by the Petitioner was only for grant of a licence to conduct Orchestra. He submitted that without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, the said application was rejected. He pointed out that no reasons have been recorded by the licensing authority for 2 Wp7558n7559.10 rejection of the said application. He submitted that the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority are totally irrelevant. 3. I have heard the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. While rejecting the application made by the Petitioner, no reasons have been recorded by the 3rd Respondent. The Appellate Authority, instead of remanding the matter for consideration of the 3rd Respondent, has chosen to record the reasons for the first time which are not found in the order of the 3rd Respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned orders will have to be quashed and set aside and the 3rd Respondent will have to be directed to decide the application made by the Petitioner afresh. 4. Hence, the Petitions are disposed of by passing the following order. (a) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. (b) The 3rd Respondent is directed to decide the application made by the Petitioner ( Exhibit – A to the Petition ) afresh in accordance with law in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jairam K. Shetty v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.3711 of 2008 decided on 22nd July, 2008. 3 Wp7558n7559.10 (c) It is clarified that the 3rd Respondent will consider the prayer made by the Petitioner for grant of licence only for conducting an Orchestra. (d) The applications shall be decided afresh within a period of six weeks from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is produced before the 3rd Respondent. (e) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (f) The parties are directed to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA, J)