1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 133 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7493 OF 2009 Ananya Properties Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner (Org.petitioner) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.V.Anturkar, with Mr. P.B.Bhargude, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Masurkar, AGP, for respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 10th November, 2009. P.C. 2 1. This Court had disposed of several matters by a common order dated 17.9.2009. The petitioner by the present Review Petition has sought review of that order. One of the directions issued by this Court was direction No.(vi). By that direction, this Court had directed that none of the petitioners shall be entitled to make any interim application to the District Judge for release of sugar during the pendency of the Appeals. It is the case of the review petitioner that if the sugar is not sold, it may result in waste considering the time of production and its sale. The petitioner therefore prayed that they be allowed to dispose of the sugar. 2. Anther contention was that the observation in respect of the protection which has been granted requires to be continued till the disposal of the Appeals since the validity of the Government Resolution dated 28th August, 2009 cannot be considered by the District Judge. 3. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, considering the sugar is a perishable commodity, we direct the Commissioner of Sugar, Pune, (1) to dispose of the stock in the present Appeal by a public auction within four weeks from today. The cost of advertisement and the expenses will be deducted from the price received from the sale proceeds. There will be no bar to any party participating in the auction and (2) the sale proceeds, after deducting the expenses be deposited 3 before the District Court in the pending appeal. The District Court shall invest the same in any Nationalised Bank for a period of six months and thereafter renew for further period till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. 4. Insofar as the other contention is concerned, we find no reason to interfere and it is only with the discretion of the Court. Even otherwise, the validity of the G.R. Cannot be questioned before the District Court. That will be done before this Court. Hence, no review is called for. With the above observations, the Review Petition is disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)