1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3192 of 2008 Laxmandas Pinjarimal Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 25 th July, 2008. This writ petition has been filed by Laxman Pinjarimal Bajaj since he felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for excise whereby he confirmed the orders passed by the authorities, whereby licence of the present petitioner was cancelled. The licence of the petitioner came to be cancelled because of the fact that certain irregularities were found. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the learned Collector has not given any reasons as to why licence was 2 being cancelled. He submits that learned Collector has merely reproduced statements made by the present petitioner in reply to the notice. After having gone through the order passed by the Collector it appears that learned Collector had given reasons as to why order of cancellation of the licence was proper. Learned Collector has considered the fact that register was required to be maintained by the petitioner in respect of the delivery of the stock/goods. The same was not property maintained and entries were not proper. He observed that this was in breach of the rules and regulations as prescribed. It is, therefore, apparent that learned Collector before passing order did apply his mind and that thereafter gave the reasons as to why the licence was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Commissioner of State Excise also did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and did not permit petitioner to defend the case. After having gone through the order of the learned Commissioner I find that petitioner was heard in person. He was given show cause notice. He was asked to file reply and he was heard personally in the matter. Therefore, there is no substance in the 3 contention of the petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even the Hon'ble Minister did not give proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. That too carries no substance inasmuch as the order passed by the learned Minister goes to show that personal hearing was given to the petitioner and thereafter the order was passed. Orders as are passed by the authorities concerned do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the petition is,therefore, liable to be dismissed. JUDGE svk