1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4031 OF 2009 Vijay Uttamrao Shinde, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Main Road, Ausa, Tal. Ausa, Dist. Latur and another. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. .. Respondents ... Mr. Anil Kasliwal, Advocate holding for Mrs. Netrali Jain, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Umakant Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 2 learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 10-06-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent - the Collector, Latur and also the order dated 16-03-2009 passed by 4th respondent - the Hon'ble Minister, State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 Collector, Latur passed order dated 10-06-2009 without any intimation to the Petitioner of order passed by the Hon'ble Minister dated 16-03-2009. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that the order passed by respondent No. 4 is dated 16-03-2009 and intimation of passing of the order was sent / dispatched from the Respondent No.4's office on 21-05-2009 and same was received by the petitioners in the last week 3 of May 2009. Thereafter, the copy of order dated 16-03-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Minister was served on the petitioners by Excise Office on 09-06-2009 and without giving time to challenge the order passed by respondent NO.4, respondent No. 2 passed order of closing the Petitioner's shop on 10-06-2009. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed their affidavit in reply dated 20-07-2009. These facts are not denied by respondent No.4. Therefore, it is clear that without supplying copy of order passed by respondent No.4, respondent No. 2 passed impugned order dated 10-06-2009 suspending the petitioners' licence in respect of liquor shop. 5. The copy of the order dated 10th June, 2009 was served on the Petitioner on 9th June, 2009 and the Respondent No.2, the Collector passed order for closing the shop of the Petitioner on 10th June, 2009 without giving him 4 time to prefer appeal. Thus there has been breach of Rules of Natural Justice and as such the order dated 10th June, 2009 passed by the Collector is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Respondent No. 2 is at liberty to take appropriate steps to implement the order passed by respondent No. 4 dated 16-03-2009 after following due process of law. 6. The petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps to challenge the order dated 16-03-2009, if they so desire, by filing a fresh petition. 7. Rule made absolute on the terms indicate above. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. . Authenticated copy be supplied to the parties. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp4031.09