(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1364 OF 2011 Adi Fardoonji Mistry, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Business, Partnership Firm, M/s. Adi & Co., Resident of Plot No. 4, Parvej Villa, Demala Colony, Khajamiya Road, Jalgaon. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. ....................... Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. Adv. Smt. Dube contends that the site where petitioner is / was having his CL-III shop is duly approved and on account of objections, which are totally unsustainable, the shop has been ordered to be closed till 31st March 2011, by taking recourse to provisions of Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. She points out that just opposite this shop, one Shri Rajendra Pimparkar is having FL-III license and he is running an establishment by name, Hotel Chinar Garden. Before Collector, specific defence in this respect has been raised pointing out that same FL-III license is running since last about 7 years without any objection and complaints against shop of the petitioner are out of business rivalry. The said contention has not (3) been looked into. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Ghute Patil has invited attention to reply affidavit, to urge that said FL-III shop is on the other side of the road and, therefore, in different locality. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner was allowed to commence his CL-III business after finding site suitable and in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Country Liquor Rules, 1971. The petitioner has specifically urged that out of business rivalry, objections / complaints against his shop have been filed. That grievance has not been considered. A shop just across the road is stated to be only in different locality. The other reason given is of a temple and a hospital in the vicinity of shop of present petitioner. Why those reasons / grounds are not relevant for other shop, is not disclosed. 6. Prima facie it appears that the grievance of the petitioner has not been properly evaluated. Only for that purpose, impugned order will have to be set aside. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (4) (i) The impugned order dated 7-1-2011, passed by respondent no.2 / Collector, Jalgaon, bearing No. CLR-112010/4354/4, is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to respondent no.2 with a direction to hear the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in the matter, as early as possible and in any case, by 11th April 2011. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2 on 29th March 2011 and abide by his further instructions in the matter. (iii) Though the order is quashed and set aside, looking to the nature of business, the petitioner shall not open the shop till 31st March 2011. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. 9. Certified Copy expedited. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1364