* 1 * W.P. 2155/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2155 OF 2009 Vinod Tulsiram Patil ..... Petitioner. V/S. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ..... Respondent ------- Mr. V.M. Vaghela i/by. Mr. Suresh D. Barne and Varsha M. Parkar. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, Government Pleader for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 27th JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner who is a cable operator challenges a letter written by respondent no.1 to the police authorities stating therein that the petitioner has not been authorised by the respondent- MHADA to carry on its cable business and therefore police help should be given for removing him. * 2 * W.P. 2155/2009 2. Though the petitioner claims that he is providing service in the colony of the respondent, there is neither any statement made in the petition, nor any document produced by the petitioner showing that he has entered into any agreement with the Co-operative Society which owns the buildings in the colony for providing cable services to their members. The petitioner also does not have any valid contract with respondent-MHADA for providing service. In any case, the petitioner without having a valid contract with the Societies which owns the buildings in the colony, cannot claim any right to provide cable service. The petitioner, as observed above, has neither made any averment in the petition nor has produced any document. He has also not joined the Societies which own the building, as respondents in the petition. When we pointed out this, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to amend the petition. There is an ad-interim order passed in favour of the petitioner because of which the petitioner continues to carry on its business. In the absence of necessary parties, the petition itself is incomplete. As the interim order is operating, we cannot grant permission to the petitioner to amend the petition because it will prolong the operation of the * 3 * W.P. 2155/2009 interim order. We find that the petitioner does not have any prima- facie right to carry on the business and therefore we do not find any error in the letter written by the respondent to the police authorities. The petition is therefore rejected. Ad-interim order is vacated. [D.K. DESHMUKH, J] [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]