1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 2448/2011 Pawanputra Janjeevan samasya Bhumivikas -versus- State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur. __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 10, 2011. Heard finally by consent of Shri S.S. Sitani and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Govt. Pleader for respondent. Rule, returnable forthwith. Petitioner in present petition has questioned cancellation of N.A. Permission vide order dated 17.03.2010. One of the contentions of Shri Sitani, learned Counsel for petitioner is without giving petitioner any opportunity or notice of hearing 2 and merely because the Divisional Commissioner has issued some directions on 11.08.2009, the Collector has passed the impugned orders. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent State of Maharashtra, points out that the Collector is the competent authority and here because of some irregularities committed by one officer an inquiry was required to be conducted, as a result of that inquiry communication dated 11.08.2009 came to be issued. It is also pointed out by learned Additional Government Pleader that in other similar matters, this Court has already directed the respondent Collector to hold inquiry to find out whether the N.A. Permission secured by the applicants in those matters is connected with that enquiry. Here facts show that because of letter dated 11.08.2009 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, the office of Collector has taken impugned action. Petitioner was not given any 3 opportunity and therefore, he has no knowledge whether N.A. permission granted to him was covered in earlier enquiry or then, there was any fault or irregularity while granting that permission to petitioner. In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by direct the petitioner to approach the Collector with appropriate representation in this respect within a period of two weeks from today. If such representation is made, the office of Collector shall consider the same independently and impartially and by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, decide the same within a further period of six weeks. However, while taking such decision the Collector shall not be influenced by letter dated 11.08.2009 and if any adverse material exists on record, the petitioner shall be given due notice thereof. For said purpose the impugned communication dated 17.03.2010 is quashed, however, it is made clear that the petitioner 4 shall maintain status quo till the Collector passes further appropriate orders in the matter of N.A. permission. Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. Certified copy expedited. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.