IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2009 SHRI ARMANDO PEREIRA ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA ... Respondent Shri S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Shri M. G. S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Shri A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.3. Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Dr. G. R. Sharma for Respondent No.4. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Dr. G. R. Sharma Coram:- SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 10th December, 2009 P.C.:- Heard. This is the second time the Petitioner is before the Court. The first Writ Petition filed by him bearing No.732 of 2008 was disposed off by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 10-12-2008. In the said Judgment, inter alia, it was observed that the said Writ Petition was disposed off on the basis of a statement made by learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of NGP&DA that they would consider the question of grant of approval for renewal of the license on its own merits and in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the objections. Learned Advocate General, at the hearing of the petition concedes, and in our view fairly, that all the objections taken by the Petitioner were not considered by the NGP&DA. He further makes a statement that the NGP&DA is prepared to hear both the brothers, the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 and decide the objections de novo. Learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.4 relying on a decision of this Court reported in Shree Rani Sati Investment and Finance Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another(AIR 2004 BOMBAY 424) has submitted that the Petitioner having availed of the opportunity, before the said NGP&DA there is no question of giving him a further opportunity of hearing. We have perused the said Order of the Division Bench dated 10-12-2008, the Order of the NGP&DA dated 25-2-2009 at page 32 and we are satisfied that all the objections of the Petitioner were indeed not considered by the NGP&DA, as was required of them in the light of the statement made before this Court on 10-12-2008. In our view, therefore, this Writ Petition can be conveniently disposed off by directing the NGP&DA to decide the objections taken by the Petitioner afresh after hearing the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4. Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks. Petition disposed off on the above terms. We make it clear that the objections be heard by the Member Secretary and the submissions along with the report be placed before the NGP&DA. The Order dated 20-5-2009 will not come in the way of hearing the parties and passing an appropriate order after considering the objections. The license to be given to Respondent No.4 will depend on the decision taken by the NGP&DA after hearing both the parties within six weeks. The Order dated 20-5-2009 is hereby set aside. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.