.[1]. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1516 OF 2006 Drishti Adventure Sports Pvt. Ltd., ...Petitioner. Versus The Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mrs.Veena B. Thadhani with Mr.Vishal B. Thadhani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.P.Pandit, A.G.P., for the Respondents. .... CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : JULY 05, 2006. JULY 05, 2006. JULY 05, 2006. P.C.: 1. On behalf of the respondent reply has been filed. The reply would indicate that the licence as sought by the petitioner has been rejected. Although the application has been filed, the appellate authority to dispose of the same at any rate within six weeks from today. With the above observations, Petition stands disposed of. 2. On behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel states that considering that the licence has been rejected, they have not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, but, they deny the averments to the extent inconsistent with the case of the petitioner. [F.I.REBELLO,J.] .[2]. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]