IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 2007 Rajesh Shankar Aher .... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors...... Respondent. Mr. D.B.Savant i/b Santosh Patil for the petitioner. Mr. S.K.Chinchalikar AGP for Respondents. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 21ST DATED; 21ST DATED; 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2007 SEPTEMBER, 2007 SEPTEMBER, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government dated 30-6-2003, liquor shop of one Ragunath B.Raut came to be closed after issuing a show cause notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing. The said Raghunath Raut carried a revision before the State Government under section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act and while dismissing the said revision, the Minister concerned ordered that as majority of the women from the village passed a Resolution for closing down the liquor shops in the village, the liquor shops be closed. The greivance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s liquor shop being run under FL-3 licence, would be closed down on the basis of the said order. The respondents have filed an affidavit in reply and para 6 of the affidavit clearly reveals that the petitioner has been already issued a show cause notice on 2-8-2007. The affidavit further reveals that the reply of the petitioner to the said show cause notice shall be considered and then an appropriate decision would be taken. The learned AGP categorically submits that the respondent would take a decision on its own merit and in accordance with the law, and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, there is no case for interference with the impugned order. The writ petition is summarily dismissed. ....