1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1448 OF 2009 Saifee A. Contractor. .... Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. Uday Wanrujikar for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP., for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a member of the respondent no. 3 Association which was allotted a telephone booth in the premises of Mantralaya Extension Building Compound. The parties have entered into an agreement wherein it has been clearly spelt out as an agreement for use of book stall/public call office for 2 commercial purpose. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a licensee of respondent no. 3 and has been paying the licence fee to the respondent no. 3 regularly. 4. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent State cannot classify the booth allocated to respondent no. 3 as for commercial purpose and charged rent of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. as per notification dated 16.10.2003. At the most they can charge the rent at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. which is meant for voluntary organisation and political parties and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 has not paid the licence fee to the respondent-State because of which the petitioner will be thrown out and made to suffer for no fault of his. It is contended that though the licence fee has not been paid after September, 2008 for which the respondent-State has initiated proceedings against respondent no. 3 as well its licensee for eviction. 5. We do not find that the petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the decision of the respondent-State with whom he has no contract. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because respondent no. 3 is not agitating the issue, he is required to approach this Court. We are not inclined to accept this contention in absence of any contract between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2. It will not be proper for this Court to entertain a writ petition in the matter. The petition is 3 dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.)