1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2314 OF 1998 Harischandra Maheshwar Karandikar, age: 67 years, resident of Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, Power of Attorney Holder of - 1) Sau. Rohini Harishchandra Karandikar 2) Sunita Sudhakar Khare 3) Shobhana Sharad Bhide 4) Vidya Raghunath Patwardhan, alias Jayashree Purushottam Ghanekar Petitioners Versus 1 State of Maharashtra 2 Shantaram Bhila Patil, Proprietor – Rajas Chitra Mandir, age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon. 3 The Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhary, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 3. Mr.P.V.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 14 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Honourable Minister for State thereby allowing the appeal filed by Respondent No.2 2 herein reversing the order of the Licensing Authority, thereby refusing to renew the license on the ground that necessary permission from Films Division of Central Government has not been produced. 2 Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that when the prescribed rules require “No Objection” of the Films Division of Central Government, the Honourable Minister has erred in allowing the appeal. 3 Shri P.V.Suryawanshi, holding for Shri S.R.Barlinge, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2, on the contrary, submits that the Honourable Minister has properly exercised the jurisdiction and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 4 The perusal of the order passed by the Honourable Minister would reveal that the Honourable Minister has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein it has been held that the condition, which requires No Objection certificate of Films Division, is not mandatory. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the Honourable Minister has been exercised in perverse manner. No case is made out for interference. 5 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/wp231498