1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 57 OF 2007 Ajay Khanderao Vartak ...Petitioner v/s. Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents Shri P.G.Pravin i/b. Mrs. Swati Sawant for the petitioner. Shri R.M.Sonpal, AGP for the State. Mrs. Dr. Poornima Advani a/w. G. Hariharan & N.D.Sharma for respondents 4 & 9. Shri I.M.Chagla, Sr. Counsel i/b. M/s. Doijode & Ass. For respondents 1 & 2. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- August 20, 2009. P.C. The Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 should be directed to cancel the permission granted to Respondent No.1 to execute business in India and further that they do not have any concern to the manufacture as well as no permission from the competent authority to use the agriculture land for industrial or factory purposes. When the Petition came up 2 for hearing, we had issued notice to the Respondents and the matter was adjourned from time to time. Vide our order dated 11th June, 2009, we had specifically kept the question of maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation open. It is, in fact, not necessary for us to examine the question of maintainability at this juncture in view of the course of action that we propose to adopt in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 & 9 submits that the Competent Authority had in its very recent meeting held on 19th June, 2009 under item no. 35 examined the entire complaint against M/s. Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd.) for post facto approval regarding the acquisition of Oceanic Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. by Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. in 1997 without the prior approval of FIPB. The Competent Authority has found that the downstream investment made by Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. in Oceanic Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. in 1997. Thus, there is no violation of any of the statutory laws in force in India which are essential for the foreign companies to carry on business in India. It is noticed in the conclusion of the Committee which reads as under:- “35.7 Deliberations DoR has reiterated its earlier comments and has supported the proposal. DIPP has communicated that the ex- post facto approval to Seagram India Pvt. Limited could be considered by the FIPB without compounding. The representative of DIPP, however, in the meeting stated that the instant proposal is covered by para 8 of PN 2 of 2009 whereby no approval is now required for downstream investment made in the past. The Board accordingly deliberated and noted the downstream investment made by Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Pernod Ricard India 3 (P) Ltd) in Oceanic Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. in 1997. 35.8 Recommendations The Board recommended that the applicant may be advised accordingly.” 2. As far as the user of the agricultural land for the purpose other than agriculture is concerned, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State brought to our notice the permission granted by the Tahasildar at Exhibit 3 of the reply at page-131. This was granted on 11th January, 1991, which refers to Survey No. 126/2. It is however stated in Paragraph 7 of the reply filed on behalf of State that out of agricultural land Survey No. 126(1) which is measuring about 4 hectare 66 R 1 hectare 4 R equivalent to 10,400 sq. meters is used for non- agricultural use for factory purposes. If that be so, the Authorities are free to take action against Respondents in relation to unauthorised user, if any. The Competent Authority of Revenue Department of State of Maharashtra shall act in accordance with law without any further delay in that behalf. 3. With above observations, we dispose of this Petition. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J