JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---Rule. Mrs. J.S. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances, all the matters have been taken up for final hearing.

2. These petitions are filed by the petitioners for appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents to consider the applications made by the petitioners and to issue licences to the petitioners for carrying on Video Games Parlours. Interim relief is also prayed restraining the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from preventing the petitioners from carrying on business of Video Games Parlours. Further interim relief is also prayed that during the final disposal of the petitioners applications and for a period of three weeks thereafter, the respondents, their officers, servants and agents be restrained by orders of injunction from preventing the petitioners from carrying on the business of Video Games Parlours.

3. The case of the petitioner in the first petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 5611 of 2002, is that he is running his business of Video Games Parlour at Bhayandar since September, 2002. It is not even his case that before he started this business, he had obtained a licence. According to him, however, he applied for the licence, but so far, the application has not been disposed of and he has not been granted such licence. In the circumstances, he has approached this Court. Similar is the case in other petitions.

4. In view of the above averments and admitted facts, we will have to consider whether the petitions brought by the petitioners to continue business of Video Games Parlours, said to have been run by them without getting any licence, are maintainable and whether such relief can be granted. Likewise, we have to consider whether interim relief, as prayed by them that during the pendency and final disposal of the applications by the respondent-authorities, they should be allowed to continue the business, can be granted.

5. In our opinion, no such relief, as prayed by the petitioners, can be granted. When the law requires a person to obtain licence before he starts running of Video Games Parlours, it is a condition precedent and sine qua non for starting of activity. If an application is made by a person and it has been kept pending for unreasonably long period, it is open to such applicant to approach this Court by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent-authorities to decide the application in accordance with law. If the application is rejected, such person can approach this Court. But before getting licence or an order directing the authorities to take a decision one way or the other, the applicant cannot start running of Video Games Parlours. Hence, relief to run Video Games Parlours cannot be granted.

6. No doubt, our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel to several orders passed by this Court and produced along with the petitions and more orders shown at the time of hearing wherein such relief was granted. Most of them are by Single Judges, but two orders were passed by Division Bench in (Writ Petition No. 4817 of 1987)1, dated October 6, 1987 and in (Appeal No. 622 of 1983)2, decided on August 23, 1983. No reasons at all have been recorded as to how such relief can be granted in absence of licence.

7. The learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in (Murarilal Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar others)3, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 515, and submitted that almost in similar circumstances, a similar direction was issued by the Apex Court.

8. In our opinion, however, the submission is ill-conceived and cannot be accepted. Murarilal was a case in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. In that case, the appellant was prosecuted for violating the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. The case of the prosecution was that though there was no existin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document