1 GPN-J.332-ARCHB-8.94-1310500-ALA4 Spl-H.C.A.S.C.D.79e FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3082 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 3082 OF 2004 PETITION NO. 3082 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 973 OF 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3084 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 955 OF 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3085 OF 204 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 974 OF 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO.. 3087 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3088 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 972 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office ) Memoranda of Coram, ) appearances, Court’s ) Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or directions ) and Registrar’s orders.) ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.S.R. Ganbawale for Petitioner. Mr. D.R. More for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & S.P. KUKDAY,JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 07, 2005 P.C. . All these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. 2 . The bonded Ware House licences of the petitioners were suspended by the Respondent Corporation. Aggrieved each of the petitioners filed suit and therein sought temporary relief. Injunction was refused by the trial court. Appeal preferred wad dismissed. Writ Petition under Article 227 was also rejected as also S.L.P. . The Petitioners as their licence periods was to expired on 31.3.2004 applied to the Respondent Corporation for fresh licence for the year 2004-05. As that was not considered petitioners has filed present petition and amongst others have sought relief that the Respondents be directed to renew the bond ware houses licences. The Respondent has rejected their application on 23.4.2004. However, it appears that the order has been handed over to the petitioners lawyer only some time in the last week. Further contention is that the orders were communicated but the packages were returned unclaimed. . Whatever may be the position. The application for renewal has been rejected. 3 The grievance of the Petitioners is that they were not heard. Even if that be so, considering the reliefs sought that issue can not be examined in this petition. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.4.2004 on their application for renewal and that can be considered independently. In the light of that the following order : . Petitions are disposed of as infructuous. . All questions of law are left open for consideration. It will be open to the Petitioners to challenge the order dated 23.4.2004 rejecting application if in law they are so advised. All Civil Applications are also disposed of as infructuous. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (S.P.KUKDAY,J.)