1 wp no.7117-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7117 OF 2010 Ratnagiricha Raja Sarvajanik Ganesh Utsav Mandal ... Petitioner. vs. The Collector, Ratnagiri & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Santosh Narwate i/by M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhide for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. Sagar Joshi for Respondent No.4. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,JJ. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.: The petitioner has challenged the revocation of a permission granted to it by the Chief Officer, Ratnagiri Municipal Council for organising a function to celebrate the Ganesh Festival. 2 wp no.7117-10 2. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The fourth respondent submitted an application on 14.6.2010 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Council for permission to organize functions at the ensuing Ganesh Festival near the Ratnagiri Maruti Mandir. Permission was granted on 18.6.2010 by the Chief Executive Officer subject to condition. After the fourth respondent was granted permission on 18.6.2010, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.7.2010 for holding a function at the same site. The application of the petitioner was allowed on the same day. Subsequently the permission granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 30.7.2010 on the ground that permission had already been granted to the fourth respondent on 18.6.2010. After the revocation, the petitioner applied on 1.9.2010 for allotment of an alternative space near Athawada Bazar Shopping Centre. Permission was granted to the petitioner on 4.9.2010 at the alternative site. These proceedings were initiated on 2.9.2010. 3. With a view to explore the possibility of an amicable solution, we suggested to the learned counsel for 3 wp no.7117-10 the petitioner and the 4th respondent and to the AGP., that a meeting may be held with the Collector of Ratnagiri. The Court has been informed that though the representatives of the fourth respondent were present, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. 4. We are of the view that there is no merit in the petition. The 4th respondent had applied on 14.6.2010 and was granted permission on 18.6.2010. Hence, there was no occasion for the grant of permission to the petitioner subsequently for the use of the same site unless the permission granted to the 4th respondent were to be revoked for valid reasons. The permission issued to the fourth respondent was not challenged. Moreover, after the permission granted to the petitioner was cancelled on 31.7.2010, the petitioner waited until 2.9.2010 to institute these proceedings. Thereafter the application of the petitioner for grant of an alternative site was allowed and the petitioner has also been allowed to hold a function of the ensuing Ganesh Festival. We have in these circumstances not been called upon to enquire into the validity of the permission granted to the fourth respondent. We also leave open the issue of what fair procedure should be adopted by 4 wp no.7117-10 the Municipal Council in future. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J.)