1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4493 OF 2009 Akhil Maharashtra Loknatya Va Sanskrutik Theater Malak Sanhatna : Petitioner. Versus The Collector, Pune and ors. : Respondents. Mr Pratap Patil for the Petitioner. Mr S R Nargolkar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr V V Kanade a/w Mr Sanjay S Gawde for the Respondent No.4. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 14th August 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. The Petitioner which is an Association approached this Court seeking direction that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to prohibit the Respondent No.4 from running Tamasha Theater viz Jai Ambika Sanskrutik Lok Natya Kala Kendra, at Sanaswadi, Tal Shirur, District Pune without valid license. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.4 is carrying out shows without a license, and therefore, Respondent No.4 should be restrained from carrying out the business of running Tamasha Theater in the name and style of Jai Ambika Sanskrutik Lok Natya Kala Kendra. 2 3. We have also heard the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 stated that since 1993 the Respondent No.4 is possessed with a license and, this time also Respondent No.4 has submitted an application for renewal of the said license to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the said application is pending with the Collector 4. What is important to be noted that the Respondent No.4 has to perform to earn livelihood. It is not only the Respondent No.4 but the entire troupe is affected by the pendency of the application. If the authorities do not take a decision on the application, the Respondent No. 4 cannot be blamed, as their livelihood is at stake. Under these circumstances, it would have been open for the Respondent No.1 to issue a provisional license in favour of the Respondent No.4. Since the Respondent No.1 has sought certain clarifications from the State Government, till the clarification obtained, the application of the Respondent No.4, we are told, cannot be decided. This in our view would be prejudicial to the interest of the Respondent No.4. Hence the Collector may consider issuance of provisional license. 3 5. Earlier when this matter was listed, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 stated that he would advise Respondent No.1 to issue provisional license and twice time was sought from this Court. However, the Respondent No.1 did nothing in the matter. Taking cognizance of this fact, we direct the Respondent No.1 to issue a provisional license in favour of Respondent No.4 till the Respondent No.1 is in a position to decide the application of the Respondent No.4 after getting clarification from the State Government. With the above directions, the Petition is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]