Lsp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2602 OF 2008 Dahisar Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Veena Thadani for the petitioner. Mr. Mattos, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. P.B.Sawant for respondent no.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : : : 10th December, 2008 10th December, 2008 10th December, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. As short question is involved, the petition proceeds for final disposal forthwith by consent. 2. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in the Original Side, Bombay is taken. However, I find no merits in the said submission. For, the registered office of the petitioner is in Mumbai, the respondents 1 and 2 have their offices in Mumbai from where the order in question has been issued. 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 takes exception to the decision of respondent no.1 in granting exparte stay against the petitioner inspite of petitioner having filed Caveat before the said authority 2 in earlier point of time. It is not in dispute that after the decision of the Commissioner passed on 6th November, 2008, the petitioner immediately lodged Caveat before respondent no.1 on 6th November, 2008 and also served copy thereof on the other private respondents. Notwithstanding filing of such Caveat, respondent no. 1 proceeded to grant exparte interim stay at the instance of private respondents which is in the nature of mandatory order against the petitioner. That order is purportedly passed on 11th November, 2008 as is noticed from the record maintained by respondent no.1. The fact remains that the said order was passed exparte against the petitioner and more so inspite of Caveat filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, such order cannot be allowed to stand even for a minute. The same is, therefore, set aside. It is left open to respondent no.1 to reconsider the prayer for interim stay at the instance of the private respondents in the pending proceedings before it and pass such order as may be advised after giving opportunity to the petitioner to resist grant of such relief. All questions in that behalf are left open. Besides, it will be open to respondent no.1 to proceed to finally dispose of the appeal itself on the next date after giving fair opportunity to both sides to contest the proceedings. All questions in the main proceedings are left open. This petition is allowed. Impugned Judgement and order 3 passed by respondent no.1 dated 11th November, 2008 is quashed and set aside with the above observations. . Petition disposed of on the above terms. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]