1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4392 of 2010. Smt.Veerlakshmi N.Mantapuriwar ..vs.. The State of Mah. and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.N.W.Sambre,Govt.Pleader for respondents. C ORAM : Mohit S.Shah, CJ. & Smt.Vasanti A.Naik, J. DATED : 7th September, 2010. P. C. 1. Challenge in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, State Excise Department, under Section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. 2. The petitioner was granted FL III licence by the Collector by order dated 19th September, 2008. However, as per the Resolution passed in the special Gram Sabha, the Collector by his order dated 5th December, 2008 has ordered closure of the shop. The petitioner’s appeal came to be dismissed by the Commissioner, Excise Department. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred revision application before the Minister, State Excise Department, who allowed the revision application and passed the following 2 order. ORDER 1) Order passed by the Collector, Chandrapur and Commissioner State Excise M.S.Mumbai dated 5.12.2008 and 10.1.2010, respectively, are quashed. 2) Collector, Chandrapur is directed to convene gram sabha as per prescribed procedure, and after obtaining resolution/voting for closing down the licence, then should pass the order. 3) As above by convening the gram sabha, till resolution is passed/voting is conducted, said licence shall be kept closed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Minister, State Excise Department, has quashed and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, no further directions could have been given to the Collector for convening Gram Sabha meeting again. It is contended that after quashing and setting aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, it is for the concerned Gram Sabha to decide about convening meeting for passing such resolution. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has supported the order under challenge and submitted that the impugned order is merely an order of remand and hence calls for no interference. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that as the Minister has set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner on the ground that there were some complaints about bogus voting, the correct position could have been ascertained only by convening the Gram 3 Sabha to pass a fresh Resolution. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Minister. Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE. chute