ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. There is no dispute that these appeals are fully covered by the decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (5) SCC 24 . 3. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the decision should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. It is too late for us to re-visit the entire issue and take a decision whether the judgment delivered earlier should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. That is a matter that should have been agitated when Godrej and Boyce (supra) was being heard. 4. It is submitted that the public interest demands that the benefit of Godrej and Boyce (supra) should not be given to everybody as there are as many as 89 applicants who are waiting in the queue to take advantage of the decision rendered by this Court. It is not for us to comment one way or the other on the facts of cases that are not before us or to comment whether or not those applicants are entitled to the benefit of the decision. If any dispute arises in this regard, the appropriate Court will take a decision in the matter. 5. The civil appeals are dismissed.