1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 1475 OF 2009 . Group Mahir Import Export & Anr. ..Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mrs. Veena B. Thadhani, for Petitioners. Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. D.B. Sawant, for Respondent No.3. Ms. Deepa Pohuja, for Respondent No.4. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2009. P.C. Rule. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 also waives service. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally. 3. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order passed by the Minister (State Excise) dated 21 st March 2009 by which the order passed by the Commissioner (State Excise), 2 Maharashtra State, Mumbai, granting permission to the petitioner for use of neutral label of “Tornado Whisky” is set aside. 3. By the impugned order, the Minister (State Excise) has granted permission to M/s. Amber Distilleries Limited, i.e. respondent no.3 to export IMFL on neutral packing label of “Tornado Whisky”. M/s. Amber Distilleries Limited was unable to produce before the Court any order from Grupo Mahir, who are admittedly the owners of the said mark “Tornado Whisky” and under whose instructions only, M/s. Dahisar Distilleries Private Limited or M/s. Amber Distilleries Private Limited, can manufacture and export IMFL to the said Grupo Mahir and use the said label. The petitioners were therefore, asked to obtain a letter from Mr. Grupo Mahir stating whether they wished to carry on any business or to place any orders with M/s. Amber Distilleries Private Limited. A letter dated 30 th September 2009 written by Grupo Mahir was produced before this Court on 7 th October 2009 wherein it was stated that they do not wish to carry on any business or to place any orders with M/s. Amber 3 Distilleries Private Limited and that they want M/s. Dahisar Distilleries Limited to use the label and execute their orders. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 had submitted that the respondent no.3 had not received any letter from Grupo Mahir cancelling permission earlier granted to them for manufacture of “Tornado Whisky” and permitting the respondent no. 3 to register the label. It was also submitted that Grupo Mahir should come forward and inform that Grupo Mahir is desirous of granting permission to the petitioners for manufacture of “Tornado Whisky” and registration of the label and they are not interested in dealing with respondent no.3. In view thereof, the petitioners were allowed to join Grupo Mahir as party respondent to the petition. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for Grupo Mahir, i.e. respondent no.4 has submitted before the Court that they do not desire to have any business dealings with respondent no.3 and that they only want the petitioners to manufacture whisky under the brand name “Tornado Whisky” and export the same to them. 4 6. In view thereof, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3 states that since respondent no.4 themselves have made a statement that they are not desirous of placing any orders with the respondent no.3, nothing remains to be submitted on behalf of the respondent no.3 and this Court should pass appropriate orders in the writ petition. 7. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the issue as to whether the label should exist in the name of respondent no.3 i.e. M/s. Amber Distilleries Private Limited has become irrelevant. In view thereof, I pass the following order :- (i) The order of the Minister (State Excise) dated 21 st March 2009 is set aside. (ii) Rule is made absolute and the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]