1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6988 OF 2008 DIST.: MUMBAI Arun Hariappa Puthran ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. J.K. Hegde for the Petitioner Mr. N.P. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondents. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2008 P.C.:- The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled to extension of licence in terms of rules for getting licence for public entertainment in Greater Bombay. He has challenged an order passed on 9th September, 2008, in which he was informed that his father, Hariappa A. Puthran, had died on 31st May, 1997, and as such, the licence got cancelled in 1997 on his death, and there was no question of extension 2 of licence. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that he had moved an application in terms of Rule 14-A of the Public Recreation Act, 1953, claiming that he was entitled to licence in view of the fact that his father had died, who was holding a licence. The application was never decided, but the licence in the name of the father was being extended from time to time, and it was in force till 31st March, 2008. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that another person also has moved an application, claiming to have purchased the property from the petitioner, and he claims the licence in his own right in terms of Rule 15. 3. Since the matter has not been decided by the respondents, therefore, we dispose of this Writ Petition, directing the respondents to dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of 15 days. For a period of 15 days from today, the status quo be maintained. BILAL NAZKI, J. 3 J.H. BHATIA, J.