skc 1 WP-4328-97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4328 OF 1997 Balkrishna Bhimaji Sonawane ..Petitioner versus The District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Mahesh V. Rawool i/b. Mr. P. B. Shah for Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. M. L. Patil for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 18 August 2011 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. The following facts are not in dispute : That the petitioner was carrying on partnership business in the name and style of Jai Bajrang Trading at Gala No. 771. The firm was granted skc 2 WP-4328-97 licence under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1963 to carry on business in Gala No. 771. The licence was valid upto 1991. The partnership firm also came to be dissolved in 1991. Neither the original partnership firm nor any of the partners of the dissolved partnership firm applied for renewal prior to 1996 and for the first time the petitioner who was one of the partners of the partnership firm applied in the year 1996 for renewal of the licence. Application of the petitioner dated 22nd April 1996 (for renewal of licence) came to be rejected by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 3rd August 1996. The petitioner preferred appeal before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, against the order dated 3rd August 1996 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 11th February 1997. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred revision before the State Government which was also dismissed by the State Government vide order dated 26th August 1997. 3. On the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is not in dispute that the licence was issued under the provisions of the said Act in the name of the firm Jai Bajrang Trading. The licence was valid only upto 1991. The firm was also dissolved. Neither the firm nor the petitioner at any point of time prior to 1991 submitted application for renewal of the licence. It is also not in dispute that the licence was non transferable and was granted in the skc 3 WP-4328-97 name of the partnership firm which was dissolved in the year 1991. In view of these undisputed facts, the orders passed by the authorities, in our view, are just and proper, needs no interference. Writ petition suffers from merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)