IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5240/08 (Padmakar Dande ..vs.. State & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9th JANUARY, 2009 Heard Mr. R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sonare, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 & 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner claims to be the project affected person and also the licensee to store kerosene as granted by the Additional District Commissioner. According to him, the said licence was continued till 31.12.2007. As per the licence, he could store kerosene upto 12000 liters. It is claimed that in the year 1996 the petitioner was granted licence to sell the kerosene. Relevant documents are filed for the purpose of record. The representation of the petitioner was of the year 1996. It was claimed that till 2006, there was ban on issuing fresh licences for sale of kerosene. Claiming that it was lifted, the petitioner claims that suitable licence be granted to him. Representation was made by the petitioner to the Collector. However, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of such licence of to sale the kerosene was turned down by the respondent no.2 as per communication dated 20.6.2007. The petitioner claims that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him and therefore, respondent no.2 be directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh after giving him opportunity of hearing for grant of licence to sell the kerosene. Heard learned A.G.P. who has raised objection to the petition. It seems that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order by the respondent no.2. Considering the contention of the petitioner that at the relevant time ban for grant of licence to sell kerosene was lifted, it was necessary and desirable to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting his prayer for such licence by the impugned order. As such, as opportunity was not granted, said order suffers from the vice of not granting proper opportunity to the petitioner before passing an adverse order. In these circumstances, that order needs to be quashed & set aside and the respondent no.2 needs to be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner as regards grant of licence after giving him opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. Rule made absolute in the above terms. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits. JUDGE smp