1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 267 OF 2011 (Ajay Satyanarayan Agrawal .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri Pankaj Navlani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 27TH APRIL, 2011. Heard. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment and setting aside a limited portion of the order, dated 13.04.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Amravati in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 243 of 2011. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as follows :- The Crime No. 87/2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act at Police Station, City Kotwali, Amravati, against the petitioner. Application was moved by him along with the other applicant Satyanarayan Bisanlal Agrawal under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking anticipatory bail. Learned In-charge District Judge and Sessions Judge, Amravati vide order dated 13th April, 2011 allowed the application. While allowing the application, the learned Judge was pleased to observe as under :- “The applicants are income tax payee, they have landed property and they are settled at Amravati. Chances of fleeing away from the investigation are mote. Considering the age and status of the applicants and continuation of ad-interim bail I am of the opinion that the order deserves to be continued. Prior to conclusion I direct the State to do thorough inquiry and to take care in future by any means that no licence for distribution of essential commodities to the below poverty person or to the 2 family members of the applicants shall be issued as far as possible. D.S.O. is present. He should note down the order and communicate the same to the superior authority.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid observations and more particularly the observation i.e. “Prior to conclusion I direct the State to do thorough inquiry and to take care in future by any means that no licence for distribution of essential commodities to the below poverty person or to the family members of the applicants shall be issued as far as possible. D.S.O. is present. He should note down the order and communicate the same to the superior authority.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority may be prejudiced by this observation and may take action against the petitioner. He further submits that the show cause notice is also issued to the petitioner. When it is asked to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to place the so called show cause notice for perusal of this Court, he was not in a position to place the said show cause notice before this Court. Apart from that, the grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prejudice is being caused to the petitioner in view of the observation made by the learned District Judge, Amravati, I find no merit in the submissions for the reason that these observations are with the qualifying sentence that the State to do thorough inquiry. It is not in dispute that in case any action of suspension of license or cancellation of license is taken by the authority, there are the remedies and fora available for the present petitioner to challenge the order passed by the subordinate authorities at various levels, such as, if the order is passed by the District Supply Officer, there are fora available to challenge the same before the Commissioner or before the State Government. Nothing is placed on record to show that any action is initiated. The petition is premature. I am of the considered view that no 3 case is made out by the petitioner to show any indulgence at the hands of this Court. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.