1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3970 OF 1991. Shamrao Senu Patil. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS Assistant Sub-Inspector, State Excise, Yawal, Dist, Jalgaon and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate holdng for Mrs. Uma S. Boara, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents/State. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31st August, 1991 passed by the respondent No.1. 2 2. It is the case of the petitioner that before issuing the order at Exh.A of the compilation, the respondent no.1 has not issued any notice to the petitioner nor inquiry was held by following appropriate procedure. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his say as regards so called complaints of the villagers about the shop of the petitioner. The sum and substance of the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and without giving proper opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for respondents and after perusal of the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein and annexures to the petition, it clearly appears that before the impugned order was passed, no notice was given to the petitioner or the petitioner was not heard by 3 the concerned authority. It is not permissible to pass any order affecting a person without giving him notice or without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person. In the instant case, the facts narrated in the petition would demonstrate that in the earlier round of litigation also, the Commissioner has set aside order against the petitioner directing him to shift the shop from one place to another. While passing the impugned order, the authority i.e. respondent No.1 should have been careful in following the procedure by giving notice to the petitioner and opportunity to put forth his case. The petition succeeds on the point that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 31st August, 1991. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st August, 1991 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C) with no order as to costs. 4 It will be open for the respondents to take any appropriate steps as permissible under the Rules, after giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if respondents so wish. Petition is disposed of with the above observations. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*