1 10.wp9757.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9757 OF 2011 Shri Pravin Vasant Kalan. ....Petitioner Vs. The Licensing Authority and Agricultural Development Officer, Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag & anr. ....Respondents Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for State. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 20, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Killedar, Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. Prima facie the impugned order does not take into consideration the fact that according to the Petitioner, he had not charged any price in excess of the MRP for the fertilizers. The order also does not indicate conscious 2 10.wp9757.11 application of mind to the letter/representation of Mr. Swapnil Liladhar Kolhe who had unconditionally withdrawn his complaint making a grievance which was made earlier. Apparently the order is also harsh since it does not indicate any reason as to why harshest possible punishment is being levied. There is no consideration of this aspect even before the Appellate Authority. For all these reasons, the impugned Judgments and Orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings deserve to be remanded back to the Licensing Authority. In view of this, the Writ Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The Licensing Authority shall rehear the Petitioner and pass a fresh order after considering the defences of the Petitioner depending on the merits of the controversy. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)