VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned advocates for the parties appearing finally, by consent.

2. The present petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India in order to challenge the communication dated 4th March, 2017 to the extent of calling upon them to deposit amount of interest issued by the 3rd respondent and for issuing directions to the respondents No.3 and 4 to refund the amount of interest that has been deposited by the petitioners under protest.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioners viz. Dwarkaprasad Hiralal Jaiswal was the license holder of “CLIII” category in respect of shop at Shahabazar, Aurangabad. Dwarkaprasad Jaiswal expired on 3rd June, 1992. After his death, the license was temporarily transferred in the name of his widow Smt. Ramdulari Jaiswal. However, said Ramdulari also expired on 18th June, 1994. They both had left four sons and three daughters as their heirs. There was a dispute between the legal representatives, and therefore, the matter was taken before the Civil Court in Aurangabad. The said petition came to be decide