1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10436 OF 2009 Bhorik Santu Yadav .. Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.U.Dholkiya for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes dated 17th September 2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 394(5) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for challenging the order dated 17th March 2009 passed by the 1st respondent-Corporation of revoking the permit granted to the business of the petitioner. In the appeal an application for interim relief was made by the petitioner seeking order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent- Corporation from acting upon the order impugned in the appeal. It appears that issue of maintainability of the appeal was raised during the course of hearing of the said application. However, the said issue has been kept open while rejecting the prayer for interim relief by passing the impugned order. The learned Judge observed that the permission granted to the petitioner was not renewed after 31st 2 March 2005. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 2008 and the present appeal was filed in the year 2009. The learned Judge observed that permission granted to the petitioner was not in force from 1st April 2005. Therefore, the learned Judge declined to grant equitable and discretionary relief of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. 2. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, writ petition is rejected. However, hearing of the appeal is expedited. Hearing shall be concluded on or before 30th June 2010. (A.S.OKA,J)