(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 908 OF 2011 Shaikh Abdul s/o. Shaikh Mohammad, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Hotel Shalimar, Nashirabad, Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantrlaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The District Collector, Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. D.S. Bagul, appearing for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. Adv. Mr. Bagul points out that the license to run lodge of the petitioner was suspended because of his alleged involvement in a crime. The competent court has acquitted the petitioner on 4-4-2009 and after that acquittal, the petitioner attempted to obtain restoration of that license. On 11-1-2010, the Collector refused that renewal because of report of Police Superintendent, Jalgaon, expressing apprehension of illegal business in such lodge and disturbance in law and order situation. He points out that this order has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner on 2-8-2010 but then, that authority has directed Collector to obtain fresh report from Superintendent of Police and thereafter to take appropriate decision. He is (3) relying upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this court reported at 1996(3) Bom. C.R. 714, in the case of Kana Nagu Mhatre Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, to urge that such course of action is unsustainable. 4. According to learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, the report has been already called for on 2-8-2010 and a reminder thereafter has been sent on 20-1-2011. After receipt of report, appropriate action will be taken. 5. The Divisional Commissioner has found that acquittal of the present petitioner was not a honourable acquittal. That is not very important at this stage. The other reason given is all four prosecution witnesses turned hostile and hence the petitioner was required to be acquitted. 6. Looking to the said order dated 2-8-2010 and the reply affidavit filed by the office of Collector before this Court, I do not find anything wrong with the direction to call for fresh report from the office of Superintendent of Police. 7. In the above facts, it is apparent that though period of about seven months has expired after the impugned order, the office of Superintendent of Police has not submitted fresh report. (4) 8. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with, by passing following order. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Respondent no.3 is directed to obtain fresh report from District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, within a period of 15 days from today and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within a further period of 15 days. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner can be used as precedence before office of respondent no.3. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/908wp