SSK/ 1 WP/6300.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6300 OF 2011 Shri Bhalchandra Arjun Gund ....Petitioner Versus The Collector, Solapur & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Cardozo, learned AGP for the State. 2. By the impugned order, the 2nd respondent cancelled the license of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner and also forfeited the earnest money which the petitioner had deposited for procuring the license. The sole contention of the petitioner is that the license was cancelled without following the principles of natural justice. At page 17 of the petition, the petitioner has annexed the notice issued by respondent no.2 on 21st April, 2011 to him. By that notice, the petitioner was directed to remain present in the Office of respondent no.2 on 3rd May, 2011 at 11.00 a.m.. SSK/ 2 WP/6300.11 This notice was received by the petitioner on 2nd May, 2011 as it is evident from the petitioner’s reply dated 3rd May, 2011 to respondent no.2. The petitioner remained present before respondent no.2 on 3rd May, 2011 and requested some time on the ground that he has received the notice on 2nd of May, 2011 only. The license of fair price shop allotted to the petitioner ultimately came to be cancelled by the impugned order dated 13th May, 2011. Para (3) of the said order, makes a reference that petitioner received the notice on 2nd May, 2011 and he made a request to adjourn the matter for 20 days in order to enable him to file reply. Despite these observations, the respondent no.2 has further observed that the petitioner’s reply is not satisfactory, and therefore, cannot be accepted and ultimately passed the impugned order. In the above said facts and circumstances, I find substance in the contention of the petitioner that he was not given hearing before cancelling his license of fair price shop. Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP, submits that the matter can be remanded to respondent no.2 for taking fresh decision. 3. The petition, therefore, is disposed of, by passing the following order : 1. The impugned order dated 13rd May, 2011 passed by respondent no.2 cancelling the license of fair price shop allotted SSK/ 3 WP/6300.11 to the petitioner and forfeiture of the earnest amount is quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration. 2. Respondent No.2 shall take appropriate decision regarding cancellation of the license of the fair price shop alloted to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.2 shall complete the entire exercise mentioned above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In the light of the above order, the writ petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)