1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8744 OF 2007 Harun Noor Mohammad Khan & Anr. .. Petitioners. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Satish Phatak i/by Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP., for Respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioners were allotted stall no. 5 and stall no. 7 respectively near Venna Lake, 2 Mahabaleshwar, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, District Satara which came to be cancelled by the impugned order dated 6.11.2007 by excluding stall nos. 5 and 7 whereas stall nos. 1 to 27 came to be allotted to various persons by fixing the licence fees as reflected in the order for a period of 11 months. The petitioners have approached this court with a grievance that they have been deprived of their business by not allotting the stalls which were already allotted to them. The respondents have not only discriminated but also violated Article 19 (g) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the respondents should be directed to allow the petitioners to carry on the business from stall nos. 5 and 7 subject to the terms and conditions as per their policy by quashing the impugned order excluding stall nos. 5 and 7 from allotment. 4. In response to the notice, the respondents have come with a very peculiar stand that the owners of the stalls who have been permitted to continue with their business vide Government order dated 6.11.2007 are residents of Mahabaleshwar and the owner of stall no. 5 is a resident of Panchgani while that of stall no. 7 is a resident of Wai and, therefore, they have not been allowed to continue. 5. We fail to understand as to how this disqualifies the petitioners from continuing with their business which they were dong on being allotted stall 3 nos. 5 and 7. The learned AGP is not in a position to place on record any such policy decision and even if such a policy decision is taken, it would be against public policy and violate the fundamental right of the citizens to carry on business unless a proper policy is framed within the proper frame-work of law. 6. We are really surprised that merely because the two stall owners are not from Mahabaleshwar they are not permitted to run the stalls. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of stalls if they otherwise meet all the terms and conditions. 7. We, therefore, dispose of the petition with the aforesaid directions. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)