*1* wpl1820-2011-919.sxw pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1820 OF 2011 Manjit Singh Sethi ... Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. Kevick Setalwad a/w Ms. Sheetal Shah i/b Mehta & Girdharilal, for the Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP, for the Respondent/State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 20th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. This petition was heard yesterday and reserved for orders for today. 2. Mr. Saluja appearing on behalf of the Respondents states that he has received instructions from the Respondents to make a statement that the Respondents and particularly the Licensing Authority will consider the application made by Petitioner for grant of License under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 on merits afresh and will communicate the decision as expeditiously as possible. *2* wpl1820-2011-919.sxw 3. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders passed by the Licensing Authority and that of the Appellate Authority rejecting the application for grant of license. Mr. Setalwad, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is running the business of the establishment and that he was proceeded against earlier by the authorities. If they have so proceeded and even after death of the original Licensee, then, the renewal is deemed to have been granted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, both orders are unsustainable in law and should be quashed and set aside. 4. In any event, his submission is that the petitioner apprehends that since the application for renewal in the name of the petitioner has been rejected by relying upon certain cases and events, that would influence the authorities in the fresh exercise which it states that would be undertaken in pursuance of the statement recorded above. 5. After the statements that have been made by Shri Saluja, it is not necessary to decide any wider question or deal with the rival contentions in further details. Suffice it to note that once the statements that are made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are accepted by this Court as undertaking to this Court, these authorities must abide by *3* wpl1820-2011-919.sxw the same and consider the application of the petitioner for grant of the licence in his name afresh and pass an order as expeditiously as possible. They must do so within a period of 6 weeks. The petitioner will make a fresh application in the prescribed format within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of such application the respondent will decide it as expeditiously as possible within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the same. It is directed that when the application is considered the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any observation and conclusion drawn in the impugned orders so also without in any manner being affected by any pending case in relation to the establishment. All contentions in relation to the application that is to be made now are kept open. The petition is disposed of in these terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)