1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5353 OF 2008 (Smt. Kamla Shivshankarlal Jaiswal & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 18, 2008. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. By the impugned order, the Collector has found that there is dispute between partners (legal heirs of deceased licensee) and therefore has given time to legal heirs to produce appropriate partnership deed till 31.12.2008 i.e. to resolve the dispute amongst themselves and to file a proper partnership deed. The Collector has further observed that if the dispute is not resolved amongst the legal heirs and partnership deed is not produced by that date, the business on the basis of license will be discontinued. Shri Parchure, learned counsel contends that the license has been given validly and the Will left behind by the deceased is also not in dispute. He states that the respondents are acting with malafides and therefore the petitioners will be put to grave and irreparable loss. He contends that the appeal by present 2 petitioners is pending and they should be permitted to continue the shop on the basis of license. Shri Kothari, learned AGP points out that the Collector or authorities under the Bombay Prohibition Act, are not concerned with the resolution of the dispute. The dispute is to be resolved by the Competent Authority but till then the business is to be discontinued. He further argues that the time is given to the petitioners to resolve the dispute between the partners and the Collector has fairly given one opportunity to the petitioners to resolve the dispute by 31.12.2008. The impugned order and the facts above clearly show that the authorities under the Bombay Prohibition Act, are not concerned with the resolution of dispute between alleged partners. The policy decision of State Government in this respect is very clear and till the dispute is resolved appropriately before the Competent forum, the business cannot be allowed to be continued. I, therefore, do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.