1 wp 3954.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2011 Javed S/o Khurshid Shaikh, Aged : 42 Years, Occu. : Bond Writer, R/o Gulabi, Balikashram Road, At Post and Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Controller General of Registration, Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State, New Administrative Building, Pune - 1. 3. Joint District Registrar/ Collector of Stamps, District Registrar Office, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Sub Registrar, Ahmednagar - 1, (South), Sub Registrar Office, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents 2 wp 3954.11 Shri R. F. Totala, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. R. K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the Respondents/State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner claims to be a bond writer and possessing license to carry on the said work. Initially the license was canceled by the authorities vide order dated 28.06.2006. The said order was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4925/2006 vide order dated 25.07.2006. Thereafter again vide order dated 23.09.2010 the license of the petitioner was canceled. This Court in Writ Petition No. 9523/2010 vide order dated 05.01.2011 quashed and set aside the order of the authority and remanded the matter back to the authority for taking fresh decision in accordance with law and as per the observations made in the said order. The enquiry is still pending. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that it would take about three to four months for completion of the enquiry in the interregnum the respondent authorities have issued a 3 wp 3954.11 letter/order dated 13.05.2011 intimating that whose licenses are canceled or the licenses are not renewed, they would not be permitted to carry on the work of bond writing in the premises of the authorities. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 3. Shri Totala, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has directed the enquiry to be conducted and has quashed and set aside the order of the authority canceling the licenses. In such circumstances, when the enquiry is not yet completed, the authorities could not have passed an order impugned, as such, prays to quash and set aside the same. 4. Mrs. Ladda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner’s license is not renewed and it was canceled. In view of this fact the authorities have every right to pass the impugned order. 5. The order canceling the license of the petitioner has been set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9523/2010 vide order dated 05.01.2011 and this Court had directed an inquiry to be conducted in accordance with law. The petitioner's application 4 wp 3954.11 for renewal has not been rejected. In the light of the fact that, the order canceling the license is already set aside by this Court in an earlier writ petition it cannot be said that the petitioner does not possess a valid license. Even the petitioner contends that the application has been given for renewal. It is for the authorities to decide the same. The authority may take conscientious decision on the said application. Till the same is done the petitioner cannot be restrained. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the authorities to complete the enquiry as directed by this Court in Writ Petition 9523/2010 and to decide the application of the petitioner for renewal of license in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13.05.2011 (Exhibit – E) is quashed and set aside. 7. This order would not be an impediment for the authorities to take appropriate action as per law. The rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11