1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1919 OF 2003 ... Prachi Abhay Shah ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.D.D.Madon with Ms.Jyoti Ghah i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Nakhawa & Mr.V.B.Dhawan for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 16 th July, 2009 P.C.: By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 29 th June, 2002/22 nd November, 2002 passed by the Collector, Pune cancelling 2 the licence granted in favour of the Petitioner under the Entertainment Rules. 2. After having heard the learned Counsel for both sides, we find that as controversy relates to the year 2001-02 it will not be appropriate to go into the merits of the matter, because even if the order of the Collector impugned in the petition is set aside, the licence of the Petitioner cannot be revived without making an inquiry into the present state of affairs. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i)In case the Petitioner applies for grant of licence under the Entertainment Duty 3 Rules for a licence, the Collector or the appropriate authority shall consider that application after making due inquiry on the basis of the material produced before the Collector or the appropriate authority and decide the application in accordance with law. (ii) However, while making the order on that application, the Collector or the Appropriate Authority shall not be influenced by the order of the Collector impugned in this petition. The Collector and the Appropriate authority shall also not be influenced by the order that is passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Pune dated 1-2-2003 because that order was made in view of the order of the Collector, which is impugned in this petition. (iii)Rule made absolute accordingly. No 4 order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.951 OF 2003 ... Prachi Abhay Shah ...Appellant v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.D.D.Madon with Ms.Jyoti Ghah i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Nakhawa & Mr.V.B.Dhawan for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 16 th July, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. It is obvious from the order of the trial 6 court that the trial court has passed the order in view of the order passed by the Collector in relation to the licence of the Appellant. By our order made in Writ Petition No. 1919 of 2003, we have permitted the Appellant to make an application for fresh licence under the Entertainment Duty Act. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by setting aside the order of the learned trial court impugned in this appeal. That order will continue to operate till the application to be filed by the Appellant for a fresh licence is decided in her favour. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R The order impugned in the Appeal is not disturbed, save and except to say that the 7 order will operate against the Appellant. However, in case the Collector or the appropriate authority is pleased to grant a fresh licence in favour of the appellant, the order of the trial court impugned in this Appeal will not operate in relation to that licence. However, the Respondent-Plaintiff shall be at liberty to make a fresh application before the trial court, if so advised for a temporary injunction in relation to that licence. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)