1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.5789 of 2006 Bankot Khadi Pravasi Jal Vahatuk Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.J.P.Kharge for petitioner. Mr.Umesh Shetty for resp.nos.2 to 5. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. December 15, 2006. P.C. . We have heard Mr.Kharge, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also perused the representation submitted by the petitioner on 26/5/2006 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Maritime Board, Mumbai. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Khed has also filed affidavit-in-reply. . In the written representation dated 26/5/2006 the petitioner’s main grievance is about the licences being granted to the other parties. We do not see anything illegal if the State Government or the Maritime Board has granted licences to more than one parties and more so when the traffic on the concerned sea route is on a steady rise. In the petition memo 2 allegations have been made against the respondent no.6 about the malpractices. Mr.Umesh Shetty, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 stated before us that the Board has examined and investigated all such complaints and nothing adverse has been found during the inspection on visits. He has assured us that if any specific instances are brought out in written complaint against any of the private operators they shall be duly investigated. . We do not find any case to entertain this petition and more so when we have noted down the assurances given to us by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 for inspection / investigation on specific complaints of malpractices in future. . The petition is disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)