(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 3144 of 2011 (In Writ Petition No. 365 of 2011) Prakash s/o. Mannulal Jaiswal. .. Applicant (Original petitioner) versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and 2 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ WITH Civil Application No. of 2011 (For extension of time) (In Writ Petition No. 365 of 2011) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, State Excise Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, .. Applicants and 2 others. (Original respondents) (2) versus Prakash s/o. Mannulal Jaiswal. .. Non-applicant (Original petitioner) ..................... Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader, for the applicants. Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the non-applicant. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Office to register the Civil Application filed by the State for extension of time. 2. Civil Application No. 3144/2011 is filed by the original petitioner, contending that orders of this court dated 21st February 2011 in Writ Petition No. 365/2011 are being defied. Contention is, inspite of findings recorded by this court in that order and favourable Police report noted by Collector in the impugned order in Writ Petition, deliberately the petitioner is (3) being harassed. 3. Learned Addl. G.P. Mr. Kurundkar points out that after receipt of orders of this court, Collector had fixed the hearing on 1-3-2011 and then found it necessary to have fresh report from Police authorities. Accordingly on 3rd March 2011 itself, a communication has been sent to the office of Police Commissioner, Aurangabad, and report was called for within 7 days. That report is still not received. Learned Addl. G.P. states that earlier Police report dated 27-7-2008 was found to be unsatisfactory because that report refused to express any opinion. That communication is also produced on record before this court. 4. Perusal of impugned order of Collector dated 10-12-2010 reveals that at serial No.4, said Police report has been mentioned and in body, it is found that report was favourable. Police authority has found that it was not possible to mention whether in future there would be any law and order problem. The interpretation of that report by Collector in his own order and present stand, therefore, appears to be inconsistent. 5. However, this court has not prohibited Collector from ascertaining the present situation and the Collector is expected to (4) pass order now, he can very well find out the existing situation. But then, it cannot be accepted that after this court made the matter time bound and after Collector call for Police report within 7 days from the office of Police Commissioner, till today, the report is not received. 6. In this situation, instead of proceeding further in the matter, I find it proper to permit the respondent no.2 / Collector to pass further appropriate orders upon the application for shifting preferred by the present petitioner in terms of earlier directions of this court, as early as possible and in any case, within a period of two weeks from today. 7. With liberty to the petitioner, to move appropriate application again, if cause of action arises, present applications are disposed of. 8. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Additional Government Pleader, as per his request. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca3144etc