criwp232.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 232 OF 2010 Sushilkumar s/o Narayan Jaiswal age 28 years, occ. business r/o Ayodhya Nagar, Warangaon Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Commissioner of State Excise Maharashtra State, Fort Mumbai 400023. 2 The Collector Maharashtra State Excise Department Office at Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. 3 The Inspector State Excise Bhusawal Office at Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 233 OF 2010 Narayan s/o Chunnilal Jaiswal age 57 years, occ. business r/o Ayodhya Nagar, Warangaon Tq. Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Commissioner of State Excise Maharashtra State, Fort Mumbai 400023. criwp232.10 2 2 The Collector Maharashtra State Excise Department Office at Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon. 3 The Inspector State Excise Bhusawal Office at Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State. ===== CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard by consent. 3 Petitioners are the CL-3 license holders. They were served with show cause notice based on surprise visit report. According to the petitioners, they had objected to the contents of the notice and claimed that no action was required to be taken. 4 The Collector, Jalgaon has passed the order on 14-11-2006 and ordered imposition of penalty of criwp232.10 3 Rs. 50,000/- and continuation of the license, subject to said payment. 5 Petitioners carried appeals to the Commissioner, State Excise. Appeals have been dismissed by order dated 23-12-2009. The order is brief and the reasons leading to rejection are incorporated in paragraph No. 5. Relevant paragraph is quoted below : “5. A show cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 26.9.2006 to which the Appellant replied on 17.10.2006 admitting the above breaches.” 6 It is seen on perusal of the show cause notice that the petitioners have disputed the allegations made against them. They have also prayed for permission to put up their say. In this background, findings recorded by the Commissioner that in view of admission by the petitioner, appeal does not merit interference, appear to be erroneous on the very face. 7 The order impugned is not supported by record. In view of this, this Court is satisfied that the petitions deserve interference. Order impugned is therefore set aside. Petitions succeed in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. criwp232.10 4 8 Petitioners are directed to appear before the Commissioner, State Excise, on 16th November, 2011, on which date, the Commissioner may fix the date of hearing and decide the revision applications in accordance with law. 9 In the circumstances, parties shall bear own cost. ( A.H. JOSHI ) JUDGE dyb