1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 34 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 34 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 34 OF 2006 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2002 Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Ms. Sumidha Vedpathak i/by Maneksha & Sethana for Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Nair ’A’ Panel Counsel for Respondent/ State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 8TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE: 8TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE: 8TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. . This notice of motion has been taken out seeking an interim relief restraining the respondents by themselves and/or through their officers, employees and agents from taking any steps in contravention of the order dated 5th December 2002 of this Court and/or 2 taking any coercive measures (including sealing of the entrances to the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1 and/or computer rooms of the totalizators threat and/or any structures thereon) for the alleged failure of Petitioner No. 1 to pay interest on alleged delayed payment of entertainment duty and surcharge on the charges levied by Petitioner No. 1 on the use of mobile phones at the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has complied with the order dated 23.1.2006 by depositing the amount on 25.1.2006. 3. The learned ’A’ Panel counsel says that he would seek instructions from the concerned department as to whether the petitioner has been regularly paying the dues for which bills have been raised by the State Government towards entertainment duty. 4. This Court on 5.12.2002 while admitting the petition has heard the parties on grant of interim relief and it has passed a detailed interim order in so far it related to the resolution dated 27.12.2001 and the demand raised by the respondent State of Maharashtra in the matter. In so far as the other notices issued by the respondent - State are concerned, i.e., relating to payment of interest on the alleged delayed payment of entertainment duty and surcharge on 3 the charges levied by Petitioner No. 1 on the use of mobile phones at the Race Course of Petitioner No. 1, that cannot be said to be in contravention of the order dated 5.12.2002 as it is in keeping with the government resolution which is under challenge. Therefore, we do not find that any further orders are required to be passed by this Court in the matter. 5. The notice of motion stands disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (K.K. Tated J.) (K.K. Tated J.) (K.K. Tated J.)