IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1581 of 2008 Bikramsingh Mohansingh Butola ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara for petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 8th July 2008 8th July 2008 8th July 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 23rd June, 2008 confirming the order of Licensing Authority dated 28th August, 2007. 2. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts in as much as the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Licensing Authority suspending the licence. The licence was suspended for 30 days. 3. That order was challenged by him before the Appellate Authority but by order dated 23rd January, 2008 the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Licensing Authority. 4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2008 which was decided by this Court on 14th March, 2008. 5. This Court has noticed that the Licensing Authority has taken into consideration the instances which were not part of the show cause notice. The allegations in the show cause notice have been referred to by this Court and, therefore, it held that the Licensing Authority took into account some other instances which were not part of the show cause notice. Further, this Court took into consideration the defence of the petitioner and observed that the Appellate Authority has not taken any note of his defence. In other words, it is neither accepting it nor rejecting it but plainly refused to consider the same. 6. The matter was relegated to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had before it not only the appeal memo but its earlier order, order of this Court and the oral arguments of the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority in para 8 of the impugned order has once again referred to the instances which are not part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and based upon which the penalty of suspension has been imposed. Repeatedly, when this Court brings to the notice of the authorities that they should not pass any order of such nature, on materials which are extraneous to the proceedings the authorities persists in doing so. Such approach of the Appellate Authority means that it is plainly disregarding the orders of this Court. In such circumstances, I see no useful purpose in now relegating the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal once again. 7. There was an order of the Licensing Authority taking into consideration extraneous material but the Appellate Authority on two occasions has refused to interfere in such an order despite this Court bringing to its notice the glaring infirmity. In such circumstances, and when I have observed that there is some sort of obstinacy on the part of the authority, it is a fit case where the order under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 8. The petitioner has brought to my notice that the establishment was closed from 5th July, 2008 till today. Further, the petitioner has stated before the Authority so also before this Court that it would abide by the conditions of the licence so also the rules and regulations not only in matter of operation of licence and working of establishment but also in terms of nominating the persons and employees as Manager. In such circumstances, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed on this count as well. There is no other material which has been placed before me which would warrant permitting the authorities to readjudicate the matter. In such circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner’s establishment will be allowed to function and licence will be allowed to operate subject to the compliance by the petitioner of the terms and conditions thereof so also rules and regulations under the Bombay Police Act. Petition allowed as above. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)