1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1206 OF 1991 Shaikh Khaja Miya Abdul Raheman Age major, Occ. Business, R/o. Village Harangul Bk, General power of Attorney holder Shri Dashrath s/o Yallappa Mushinamwar Age 30 years,Occ. Business, R/o. Killari, Tq.Ausa, District Latur ...Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 The collector, Latur District Latur (Copies to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.V. Chandole h/r Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Phatke, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4TH JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1 This petition is directed against the order dated 11.2.1991, passed by respondent No.2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, 2 are as under;- The petitioner possesses licence No. 55/1990-91 in the Form of CL-III for retail sale of country liquor. As per the licence issued by the respondent, the location of the shop was at Jategaon. However, the Gram Panchayat of village Jategaon opposed for conducting the business of the shop in the said village and therefore, the petitioner on 24.7.1990 had applied for shifting the shop from village Jategaon to village Harangul (Bk), Tq. and District Latur. Respondent No.2, considering the application of the petitioner, by his letter dated 14.11.1990, permitted the petitioner to shift the shop from Jategaon to village Harangul (Bk). The petitioner accordingly started his business of CL-III licence at village Harangul (Bk), after fulfilling the conditions, as laid down in the letter dated 14.11.1990. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no complaint from the villages of Harangul (Bk), as also the petitioner has not violated any conditions as contained under Rules or in the licence, however, respondent No.2 has issued a letter dated 12.12.1990, to the petitioner mentioning therein that the complaints are received regarding running of shop by the petitioner, from villagers of Harangul and therefore, he should shift his shop at such a place which will be at least 3 to 4 kilometers away from the existing place. It is further case of the 3 petitioner that the respondent No.2 has not supplied the copy of complaints which are received from the villagers of Harangul (Bk), in respect of business of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to give reply to the letter issued by respondent No.2. It is further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 issued another letter dated 7.1.1991, referring earlier letter dated 12.12.1990, reiterating therein the same contention, and has directed to shift the shop. It is further case of the petitioner that there are no complaints from villagers of Harangul (Bk) since 20.11.1990 till the date of filing of the petition. It is further case of the petitioner that Gram Panchayat of village Harangul (Bk) issued no objection certificate on 3.11.1990 for running his shop in village Harangul (Bk) and this certificate itself shows that there are no complaints from the villagers. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 by letter/order dated 11.2.1991, has directed the petitioner to close down the shop till the shop is shifted from the place, where it is located to a new place. Hence, this petition. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 without hearing the petitioner herein has prejudged the issue and issued letter dated 12.12.1990 stating therein that the petitioner to shift the shop from existing place to some other place at a 4 distance of 3 to 4 kilometers from the existing place. According to the learned counsel by this time it is well established principle of law that before passing any order or taking any action of the authority, if it is going to affect drastically on the common citizen, it is necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the said person to put forth his contention. According to the learned counsel, the village Gram Panchayat at Harangul has already issued certificate giving no objection to run the shop and therefore, in absence of supply of copies of complaints to the petitioner as well as without affording any opportunity to put forth his contention, the impugned letter/order dated 11.2.1991 has been issued by respondent No.2 herein. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the impugned letter/order is impermissible since it is in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, relying on the pleadings in the petition and the grounds therein, learned counsel would submit that this petition may be allowed. 3 Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State authorities invited my attention to the impugned letter issued by the respondent authorities and submitted that in view of the complaints received from the villages of village Harangul (Bk), the said letter was issued and therefore, he would submit that this petition devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5 4 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents. After hearing counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned letter/order directing the petitioner to shift the shop from one place to another place, even without supplying him the necessary documents in the nature of complaint received from the complainants and in absence of having been given opportunity of hearing and to put forth his case, the impugned letter/order was impermissible and the same is not sustainable in law. 5 The petitioner has paced on record the no objection certificate at Exh. "C" at page 21 of the compilation, in which the Sarpanch of village Harangul (Bk) has issued no objection certificate to run the shop of the petitioner in the said village. It was incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to supply the copies of complaints to the petitioner, as requested by him and further giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking final decision, directing him to shift the shop from one place to another place. 6 By this time, it is well established that if any order is going to affect a person against whom it has been passed without affording him to put forth his case, is not sustainable. Without going into any other aspects of the matter, suffice it to say that the impugned order is passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner 6 and non supplying him necessary documents to put forth his case, therefore, the impugned letter/order dated 11.2.1991, is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". 7 It is made clear that it will be open for the authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of hearing before passing any order. ( S.S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/