1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2625 OF 1991 Vishwanath Bapu Lade Age 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Karla, Tal. 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. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4TH JANUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1 This petition is directed against the order dated 2.7.1991, passed by respondent No.2 Collector, Latur. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are as under;- 2 The petitioner herein is running his country liquor shop from the year 1988-89, in village Karla, Tq. Ausa, District Latur, It is further case of the petitioner that on 2.7.1991, without affording any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to close down his shop until further orders. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, Latur, has filed this writ petition. 2 This petition was taken up for hearing as to admission on 21.8.1991, when this court issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause "D". As a result of granting interim relief, the petitioner is running the shop at the place, where it is allowed to run. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 2.7.1991, passed by the Collector, Latur is without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner or without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his contention and therefore, the said order at Exh. "B" of the compilation is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel invited my attention to the letter issued by Sarpanch to the Collector, Latur dated 30.7.1991, stating therein that inconvenience is being caused to the villagers due to closure of shop of the petitioner. The sum and substances of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the 3 petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Collector, Latur is without issuing any show cause notice or without hearing the petitioner, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 4 Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that due to complaints received from Gram Panchayat, Karla, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, learned A.G.P. would submit that since there were complaints the said order came to be passed he thus submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.P. for the respondents and after perusal of the impugned order as well Exh. ‘C’, which is a letter written by Sarpanch to the Collector, Latur, I am of the considered view that the stand taken by the Collector, Latur in the order dated 2.7.1991 is falsified in view of the letter dated 30.7.1991 written by the Sarpanch to the Collector, Latur. It is also an admitted position that neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to put forth his case. Thus, in absence of any show cause notice as well as non affording any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, the impugned order is not sustainable and thus the same is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B”. 4 6 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/