(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10811 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 10811 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 10811 OF 2004 Ramrao Nanaji Gunjal & Anr ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.S. Godbole, counsel for Petitioners Mr. A.H. Palekar, A.G.P. for Respondent 1 to 3. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2005 DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2005 DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2004 the learned 5th Additional District Judge at Nashik has dismissed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2004. The trial court in R.C.S. No. 299 of 2001 was pleased to reject the application for temporary injunction filed at Exh.5 and the same order was challenged in the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 2004. 3. Admittedly, the notice dated 5.5.2001 was issued by the Forest Department calling upon the petitioners- plaintiffs to shift the Saw Mill beyond the distance of 10 kilometres radius from the Reserve Forest and to stop running the Saw Mill and this notice was issued knowing the fact that the (-2-) plaintiff’s licence was subsequent to 16.7.1981. 4. Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the Saw Mill at the present location was within the distance of 10 kilometres. It was for the plaintiff to bring on record the appropriate material in respect of this contention or in the alternate make an application for deciding this issue regarding the distance. Such an issue cannot be decided in this petition. 5. The reasoning given by the lower appellate Court in dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application at Exh.5 does not suffer from any errors apparent and therefore, the challenge to the same is devoid of merits. No case is made out to cause interference with the concurrent view taken by the courts below, under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is therefore, rejected summarily. 6. However, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the petitioners to take out an appropriate application before the trial court in the pending suit for ascertaining the location/distance of the Saw Mill.