1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 307/2010. ( Manoj Dayaram Rai -: versus :- Bharat N. Borole and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 09, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.R. Srivastava learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S. Dewani, leaned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Thakre, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 to 6. Contention of petitioner is that the concurrent findings of Collector and State Excise Commissioner are set aside without considering the material on record and his submissions are ignored only because he happens to be a rival in trade. According to Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, when seriousness of irregularity is looked into, this cannot be the reason. Shri Dewani, learned counsel on the other hand argues that facts constituting alleged irregularity cannot be looked into at this stage and till conviction is recorded, no action in that respect is possible. He states that relevant judgments taking this view were placed before the Hon’ble 2 Minister, and the Hon’ble Minister has mentioned those judgments by referring to them as “available documents”. Shri Thakre, learned A.G.P. is also supporting the impugned order. I find the order recorded by the Hon’ble Minister cryptic. Why the findings are perverse has not been appropriately demonstrated, when the findings are concurrent and by two responsible officers. Not only this, why the stand of revision applicant before it that action was not possible till conviction is recorded, has also not been appreciated. The Hon'ble Minister has given respondent no.1 an opportunity to reform himself. Looking to the nature of the order it is difficult to accept that in case respondent no.1 is convicted, any further action in the matter is open. However, as I find the order cryptic, it will not be proper to close the issue at this stage, particularly when the Hon'ble Minister has not applied mind to that aspect in the light of the judgments on which Shri Dewani, learned counsel wants to rely. Therefore, keeping all rival contentions open, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of respondent no.2 for taking fresh decision as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2010. Parties to appear before respondent no.2 on 25.02.2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.