1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2940/2009 ( Bhimraj C. Mandhalkar and another -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard Shri S.M. Puranik, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Chavan, learned Counsel for Intervenor. There is dispute between the parties about the status of intervenor. According to petitioners, intervenor was never married to deceased Chandrabhan. According to learned counsel appearing for intervenor, this was never the case of petitioners. I have perused the documents. During hearing it has transpired that petitioners were not heard after objection was raised and by respondent no.1 Government in appeal. The fact is admitted in reply affidavit by respondent no.3. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.07.2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is 2 restored back to the file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision after hearing the petitioners as well as intervenor in accordance with law. The learned counsel for intervenor points out that petitioners are using the licence and doing business today, and hence they should be directed to maintain day to day accounts, so that ultimately the equities can be worked out. Considering the nature of controversy, the petitioners are directed to maintain accounts during the pendency of the matter before respondent no.1. Learned counsel for intervenor states that intervenor should be permitted to inspect the business and accounts once in a month. However, the request need not be considered at this stage. Learned counsel state that intervenor also had filed appeal in the matter. The said appeal should also be disposed along with the present matter. Writ Petition is partly allowed and the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the appeals pending before it filed by the petitioners and intervenor, as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2010. Petitioners to continue to run the business until further orders, subject to above directions. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.