1 (CAW 3085 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008 WITH CAW 3086 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3085 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6045 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3086 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6045 OF 2008 Ramnaresh Morya Prop. of M/s. Durga Hotel ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.D.B. Savant i/b. Kansara & Thanekar for Petitioner Mr. N.P. Deshpande-AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Police dated 16.4.2008 and also the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister dated 30th July, 2008, who was pleased to confirm the order of 2 (CAW 3085 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008 WITH CAW 3086 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008) cancellation of the licence of the Petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.3 in fact, had cancelled his licence in the year 2005 and the said order of cancellation remained in force till 25.8.2009 when the impugned order was set aside by the Hon’ble Minister. He submitted that during the said period, the Respondent No.3 having cancelled the licence could not issue a show cause notice for the alleged offence referred in the show cause notice in the year 2006-2007. 3. Perusal of the said orders clearly indicate that during the time when the show cause notice was issued, the Respondent No.3 had already cancelled the licence of the Petitioner in 2005 and the said order has remained in force till the Hon’ble Minister set aside the order dated 25.8.2009. 3 (CAW 3085 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008 WITH CAW 3086 of 2010 in WP 6045 of 2008) 4. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Police, therefore, is passed without any application of mind. The said order, therefore, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The order passed by the Hon’ble Minister dated 30.7.2008, therefore, does not survive. 5. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 6. It is clarified that it shall be open for the Respondents to take an appropriate action against the Petitioner for breach of the conditions of licence and the other breaches for running the said restaurant though his licence was cancelled. Petition is disposed of. Civil Applications do not survive and are also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)