1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7617 OF 2009 Govind s/o. Eknath Shirole Age 46 years, Occ. Business- Agril., R/o. Mahanubhav Galli, Parola, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Additional District Magistrate, Jalgaon. 3] The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.M. Gholap, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 18th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of preset petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th October, 2009, vide which the appeal filed by the the present 2 petitioner, against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalgaon dated 3/7/2009 came to be dismissed. 3] The license issued in favour of the petitioner under the Explosives Act was cancelled vide order dated on the ground that there was a mishap in one Savitri Fire Works, which, according to the Additional District Magistrate, was within a short distance of the factory of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The same is rejected hence, the present petition. 4] Shri Gholap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that factory of the petitioner is situated at a distance of 460 meters from the factory, where the mishap had occurred. He submits that under the relevant rules, the prohibition is only for 95 meters. He submits that the appeal has been dismissed on 6th October, 2009, whereas,the report of the Tahsildar is dated 5th October, 2009. 5] Perusal of the appeal would reveal that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal, finding that the order impugned before it was only regarding suspension. It has further found that the Collector is empowered to take final decision, after a due enquiry in the matter. 6] In that view of the matter, I find that the interest of justice would be met by permitting the petitioner to make an application before the Additional District Magistrate, for revocation of suspension, by placing all the 3 documents on which the petitioner relies. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make application to the respondent NO.2 for revocation of the order. On such application being made, the respondent No. 2 shall consider the application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering all the documents on which the petitioner would rely. The application would be disposed of within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt thereof by the respondent NO.2. 7] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms,with no orders as to costs. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-