1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2772 OF 1991. Abhay Tarachand Jaiswal, Proprietor, Hotel Eshant, Anturli, Taluka Edalabad, Dist.Jalgaon through General Power of Attorney holder Tarachand Nandlal Jaiswal. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Commissioner for State Excise, Old Custom House, Bombay-400 023. 3. The Collector of Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon.(State Excise Department), Jalgaon, Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate holding for Mr.N.D.Sonawane, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.T.S.Lodhe, A.G.P. for the Respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 26.02.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order dated 19.6.1991, rendered by learned Collector,Jalgaon, whereby license granted to his hotel-cum-permit room was cancelled. 2. Indisputably, F.L.III license was granted to the petitioner for running a hotel and permit room under the name and style as "Hotel Eshant" at village Anturli. There were some complaints about running of the permit room. A report of the Tahsildar was called. It appears that the Tahsildar visited the premises on 17.4.1991. The Tahsildar, Edalabad, noticed that the construction of the premises was not in accordance with the map and the first floor was incomplete. It was also noticed that there were no eatables available in the hotel. It was further noticed that the stock of liquor was stored in the approved premises but was kept at two different places and the liquor vending was being done at those two different premises. A notice was served on the petitioner. His 3 explanation was called by the learned Collector. Thereafter, the license was suspended. 3. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of State Excise but the same is pending since 1991. The petitioner also filed this petition simultaneously. Inteirm relief was granted to him. So, the license to the permit room was continued during pendency of the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 5. There are intervening developments. The petitioner has placed on record copy of the communication dated 25th September 1991 issued by the Collector, calling upon him to furnish the amended map of construction. He accordingly furnished the map of construction which was verified by the Collector and seems to have been approved. It appears that during intervening period, the petitioner got completed the construction of the first floor. 4 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that on day of surprise visit i.e. 17.4.1991, the eatables were not stored in the hotel because renovation work was going on and that it was dry day. 7. What emerges from the record is that the petitioner explained that the repair work at the premises was going on. It is not a case that the permit room was approved over an open plot. There was construction but a part thereof was under repairs or renovation. The objections shown in the report of the Tahsildar were not so much so serious so as to entail drastic action of revocation of the permit. Moreover, at present, the deficiency is removed by the petitioner. Considering these aspects and intervening developments and particularly because no reply is filed by the Respondent, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable. It is pointed out by Mr.Lodhe, learned A.G.P. that appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Commissioner of State Excise. As stated earlier such appeal is pending since 1991 5 onwards till now. Ordinarily when appellate remedy is availed, this Court will not interfere in the appellate jurisdiction. However, in view of intervening development, it is not desirable to relegate the petitioner to the appellate forum. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp277291