bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2009 Smt.Hiradevi Ghansdhyamdas Dubey ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.N.Gawade i/by Pravin G. Sawant for the petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2009 21ST APRIL, 2009 21ST APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.9.2008 by which the licence issued to the petitioner has been suspended for 60 days. According to the petitioner, such an order could not have been passed as it does not take into consideration the fact that the authorities had withdrawn the subsequent suspension order dated 8.8.2008 by an order dated 14.10.2008. The petitioner claims that the offences stipulated in the impugned order are also incorporated in the order dated 8.8.2008 and since that order dated 8.8.2008 was 2 withdrawn on 14.10.2008, the impugned order is unsustainable. 2. Two affidavits have been filed by the State in support of the action taken by it. According to the affiant, the petitioner has time and again violated the provisions of law and committed several breaches while conducting her business. It is contended that the petitioner is incorrigible and does not observe the provisions of law at all and it was therefore necessary to issue the orders suspending the licence issued to her for running a place for public entertainment. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the offences which had been listed in the impugned order were listed in the order dated 8.8.2008, only by way of history of the offences committed by the petitioner, and therefore, the respondents have not committed any illegality by continuing with the show cause notice issued on 6.10.2007. 3. In my opinion, when the order dated 8.8.2008 suspending the licence has been revoked, the State could not have continued with the action for the same offences by issuing the order dated 19.9.2008. The offences listed at Sr.Nos.12 to 18 in the order dated 8.8.2008 find place in the impugned order and, therefore, in my 3 opinion, once the order dated 8.8.2008 has been revoked unconditionally, despite such offences having been committed, by the order dated 14.10.2008 the State could not have continued with the action for the same offences and issued the impugned order. 4. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 5. The impugned order is set aside. However, the present order will not have any bearing on the show cause notice issued on 18.3.2009 and which is pending adjudication.