1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Impugned order passed by Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad below Exhibit-18 in Regular Civil Suit No.228 of 2011 notices omission on part of defendants to file reply, grants them time to file it and directs parties to maintain status-quo. This status-quo is clarified by adding "not to proceed for renewal till next date". The renewal is of CL-III licence with petitioner and it was to expire on 31st March, 2011. This Court on 1st April, 2011, while issuing notices directed parties to maintain status- quo as on 1st April, 2011 to continue. The petitioner states that because of orders of this Court the CL-III licence is renewed till today. 3. Advocate Shri Mantri for petitioner contends that petitioner is tenant and suit 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. filed is for his eviction on different grounds. In that suit, one of the relief claimed is to direct present petitioner not to continue and obtain or renew the said licence of country liquor on the said premises. He contends that such a relief is alien to dispute between landlord and tenant. The suit premises are being used for carrying out licenced business and petitioner became aware of the purchase by present Respondent Nos.3 and 4 only after receipt of notice from them. He further argues that on very first day of appearance when the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought time to file reply, impugned order came to be passed. There was no urgency warranting passing of such order. 4. Learned A.G.P. states that as per orders of this Court Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have conducted themselves. 5. Shri Barlinge for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 has supported the order. He contends that 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petition suffer from suppression of facts because V.J.Tanpure disclosed in paragraph 4 of the petition is a servant of present petitioner and his relationship is also recognised for the purpose of Bombay Prohibition Act by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He invites attention of Naukarnama form placed along with reply affidavit for the said purpose. He further states that by impugned order the trial Court had directed parties to maintain status-quo till next date and hence a petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He, therefore, argues that trial Court should be permitted to proceed further with adjudication of the controversy in accordance with law. 6. Shri Mantri in reply states that petitioner has approached trial Court and filed application for setting aside of the order dated 24th March, 2011 and that 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. application is being considered by trial court. He further points out that upon instructions he has gathered that even today Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have moved trial Court for grant of adjournment to file reply. 7. It is not necessary for this Court to look into the details of controversy, at this stage. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are owners of the premises in which CL-III establishment is located, have contended that they have not given required "no objection" for renewal of CL-III licence. Effect thereof can be looked into by the trial Court. 8. The facts show that the premises have been approved and sanctioned for CL-III business by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with the scheme of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1973. The business was going on in those premises when trial Court passed the impugned order on 24th March, 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2011. Suit before it was for eviction of present petitioner and in that suit a permanent injunction to restrain him from continuing with that business or from obtaining renewal of licence was also sought. The very same prayer was also made in application for grant of temporary injunction. 9. The trial Court therefore should have attempted to find out whether grant of such a prayer was within four corners of law when it was considering only application for temporary injunction. The necessary ingredients like prima facie case, balance of convenience and possibility of irreparable loss insofar as the renewal of CL III licence is concerned ought to have been taken into consideration before passing a restraining order of then before passing an order directing parties to maintain status-quo. The impugned order passed on 24th March, 2011 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. not only directs parties to maintain status- quo but then lateron further directs the other defendants i.e. officers of State Government not to renew the licence till next date. The relief granted cannot be viewed as purely interlocutory relief or order. The petitioner is using tenanted premises only for running CL-III business and by impugned order trial Court had stopped it, thereby virtually evicting him from premises. This effect has been achieved without recording any reasons. 10. In view of this finding, it is apparent that the bar sought to be pressed into service by Advocate Mr. Barlinge is not available. The correctness of service upon Vijay Tanpure or then the effect of non- appearance of petitioner on same day are the aspects which can be looked into by the trial Court and not very relevant before me. 11. This Court has on 1st April, 2011 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. permitted licence in favour of petitioner to be renewed and accordingly that licence has been renewed till 5th April, 2011. Shri Mantri has produced a photostat copy of acknowledgment dated 1st April, 2011 before this Court. 12. In this situation, without observing anything more, the trial Court is permitted to proceed further with the adjudication of prayers before it in accordance with law after giving parties necessary opportunity in the matter. 13. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall file their reply, if any, before the trial Court by 11th April, 2011. The present petitioner may also file his reply by same date. Trial Court shall hear the parties and decide the application as early as possible and in any case before 18th April, 2011. Till then the interim orders passed by this Court on 1st April, 2011 shall continue. 8 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 2614 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 14. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms. No costs. 15. Authentic copy of this order is permitted to learned A.G.P. as per usual procedure. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:05/04/2011. ans/2614