1 wp-2364-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2364 OF 2010 Shri Vasant Vishnu Lahamge and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Aniket U. Nikam for petitioners. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 07, 2010. P.C. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the notification dated 4/12/2000 as well as 27/3/2002. The petitioners’ establishment is in Sinnar Talukar of Nasik District and a perusal of these notifications indicates that the notifications are applicable to the entire Nasik District and not particular Talukas. It has been brought to our notice that the notifications were made applicable only for Sinnar 2 wp-2364-10 Taluka and other Talukas like Niphad etc. in Nasik District were not brought within the purview of the said notifications. So long as the notifications are operative, the petitioners are required to remit the renewal charges for the license as per the said notifications and if the officer concerned had not charged as per the said notifications, the Lincensing Authority would be fully justified in recovering the arrears from the date the license fees was revised. We do not find any substance in the challenge raised in this petition, namely, to the demand for higher license fees and, therefore, the demand dated 8/2/2002 is not liable to be interfered with. Hence, the petition is rejected and we direct the Collector and District Magistrate, Nasik to ensure that the above referred notifications are made applicable to the entire Nasik District and excluding the area specifically mentioned therein, if the same have not been made applicable. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)