2.wp.1349-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.1349 OF 2010 M/s.G.M. Breweries Ltd., ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.D.B. Savant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for the Respondent - State. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2010. P.C. 1. Admitted facts are that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.2454 of 2002 in this Court. In that Writ Petition, Civil Application No.2539 of 2007 was taken out by the State. In that Writ Petition, order dated 26th August, 2009 was passed. That order dated 26th August, 2009 reads as under : “ Heard the learned AGP in support of this group of applications filed by the State of Maharashtra. Mr.Sawant appears for the Respondents- original Petitioners. The reply opposing the applications and filed in Civil Application No.1305 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.5530 of 2004 is requested to be treated as the reply in all the applications by the original Petitioners. For the reasons set out in our order dated 30/7/2009 passed in Civil Application No.1305 of 2.wp.1349-10 2 2009 in Writ Petition No.5530 of 2004, we allow these applications and direct the present Respondents- Companies to deposit 50% of the demand amount within eight weeks from today and they shall continue to do so in future as well. They shall furnish an undertaking that in the event if the petitions fail, they shall deposit the balance amount. We make it clear that in the event the respondents succeed in the challenge, the State shall repay the amount to the Respondents with interest of 9% per annum from the date of payment/deposit till the date of refund." 2. Admittedly pursuant to this order dated 26th August, 2009, the petitioner was to deposit 50% of the demand amount. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited that amount and, therefore, notice dated 3.2.2010 has been issued for recovery of that amount which the petitioner was liable to deposit in this Court. Admittedly, the order dated 26th August, 2009, quoted above, has not been challenged by the petitioner and it continues in force. In our opinion, so long that order continues in force, the petitioner cannot object to the notice issued pursuant to that order. Hence, Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)