1 (WP179.2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2011 Amrutrao Narsihmlu Komarwar ... Petitioner. V/s The Collector of Nanded, State Excise Department, District Nanded and others ... Respondents. Mrs. Veena Thadani for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. D.B. Sawant for the intervener. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, by order dated 30/9/2010, Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai set aside the order passed by the Collector dated 23/3/2010 and remanded the matter to him for fresh inquiry, the Collector misinterpreted the operative part of the order and has directed that License of the petitioner should be suspended. 2 (WP179.2011) 3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was issued CL-III License. According to the petitioner, a complaint was made by certain competitors and, as a result of the said complaint, the Collector was pleased to cancel the License by order dated 23/03/2010. The said order being appealable order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by a detailed order came to the conclusion that the order of the Collector was illegal. He, therefore, was pleased to remand the matter for fresh inquiry. He, therefore, vacated the interim relief which was granted during pendency of the appeal on 01/04/2010. The Collector came to the conclusion that since the interim order granted by the Commissioner was vacated, License of the petitioner was liable to be suspended and, therefore, has passed the impugned order. 4. It is apparent that the Collector has committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. When the Commissioner has set aside the order of the Collector and thereafter consequently set aside the order of cancellation of License, the License of the petitioner automatically stood revived. In this view of the matter, the Collector did not deem it fit to continue the interim order which was granted. In my view, interpretation of the order of the Commissioner made by the Collector in his order dated 21/12/2010, apart from being a clear instance of error of law which is apparent on the face of record, to say the least is perverse. 3 (WP179.2011) 5. The said order dated 21/12/2010 passed by the Collector is therefore quashed and set aside. The Collector shall hold an inquiry and pass the order on merits in accordance with law. 6. Petition is disposed off accordingly. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (WP179.2011)