hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 586 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1594 OF 2008 Pratibha Shah ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, Ms. Crasto i/by K. Ashar & Co. for Petitioner. Mr. J. Reis, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Rui Rodrigues i/by Reena Salunkhe for R. No. 7. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, G.P. For R. Nos. 1 and 5. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010 P.C. This is a motion by Respondent No. 7 praying to direct the Competent Authority to restore licence of the respondents and permit respondent to conduct hotel business from the premises pending the decision of the suit No. 1517 of 2004. In the petition filed by the Petitioners, this court issued rule on 2.3.2009. This court further directed the Municipal Corporation Licensing authority not to permit Respondent No. 7 to conduct business of hotel unless Respondent No. 7 meets all the requirements of D.C.R., Building Regulations and bylaws and other requirements. It was further set out that it was only on no objection certificate from the competent authority that the respondent – licensing authority would renew or grant fresh licence for the said purpose. Thereafter the court observed that this is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to get the matter adjudicated from the Competent authority/licensing authorities in accordance with the law. It appears that thereafter the Corporation proceeded on the basis of order passed by this court and by order dated 19.3.2009 revoked the licence itself for the reasons set out therein. This motion was taken out on 27.11.2009. From the facts on record, it is pointed out at the bar that the order of this court was subject matter of SLP. That SLP has been dismissed. In other words, as long as the order of this court subsists, Respondent No. 7 cannot be allowed to carry on business in the said premises. At the same time, the order passed by this court was not to revoke the Petitioners’ licence but not to renew it and or issue fresh licence. Prima facie, this would be because if ultimately the petition is dismissed, Respondent No. 7 would be in a position to carry on business or if he complies with the directions as contained in the order of this court dated 2.3.2009, it may be possible for Respondent No. 7 to carry on the business. That cannot be the case if hte licence is cancelled. Considering these aspects of the matter, we clarify that the order of Commissioner dated 30.3.2009 be treated as an order suspending the licence. The learned counsel further states that the order of this court and of Municipal Commissioner should not be treated as an order preventing him from taking such steps in law to which he is entitled to. The order dated 2.32009 is itself clear. Respondent No. 7 is entitled to get the matter adjudicated in accordance with the law. The suit is pending before the City Civil Court. The learned counsel makes a request that the suit is of the year 2004. It may be expedited. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct the City Civil Court to dispose of the said suit at any rate not latter than six months from today. With the above observations, motion disposed of. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F,I. REBELLO,J.)