[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 811 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 811 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 811 OF 2008 Smt. Sumanjit Kaur Kakkad ... Petitioner. Vs. The State ofMaharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Nitin Nikam i/b. Nitin Nikam & Asociates advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.W.Mattos AGP for respondent No.1 & 2. Ms. Kiran agalia advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar : Sri R.M.S.Khandeparkar and and and Sri A.A.Sayed, J. Sri A.A.Sayed, J. Sri A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : July 16, 2008. : July 16, 2008. : July 16, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Affidavit-in-reply filed to the petition clearly discloses that there is no interference in any manner by the respondent in the business of cable network operation by the petitioner. Merely because the competition in business happens to cause any inconvenience to the petitioner, that cannot be a justification to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. [ 2 ] 3. As there is no case made out for interference in the matter in writ jurisdiction, the writ petition stands rejected. No order as to costs. [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]