( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2010 Naresh Chitra Mandir, Parbhani, through its Proprietor Kishor s/o Bhagchand Talreja. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader, for the respondents/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 22-11-2006, passed by the Hon’ble State Minister (Home) whereby ad-interim stay granted in an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been vacated. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is running a cinema theater at Parbhani. The ( 2 ) license to run the said cinema theater, styled as “Naresh Chitra Mandir” was issued on condition that the petitioner will comply with the requirements of the Govt. Resolution dated 22nd July, 2004, particularly the conditions enumerated therein for the purpose of grant of valid license. The District Magistrate (Collector) held that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions as per the requirement of the Govt. Resolution dated 22nd July, 2004. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 22nd August, 2006. He replied the same on 4th September, 2006. He submitted that he had complied with the necessary conditions. Considering the report dated 7th September, 2006, which was submitted by the Entertainment Tax Inspector, the District Magistrate held that the condition No. 1 as envisaged in the Govt. Resolution dated 22nd July, 2004 was not complied with by the petitioner. Therefore, the license was suspended by order dated 13-11-2006 passed by the District Magistrate. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was entertained by the Hon’ble State Minister and ad-interim stay was granted on 22-11-2006. The Hon’ble State Minister, however, vacated the stay order on 9th March, 2010 after hearing the State. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned Additional Govt. ( 3 ) Pleader. 4. The impugned order rendered by the Hon’ble State Minister appears to be non-speaking order. The communication dated 28th May, 2010 purports to show that hearing was held on 9th March, 2010 and after hearing the say of the State, the stay was vacated. What reasons prevailed to order vacation of the stay ? There appears no material to infer any particular contingency or change in circumstances which prompted the Hon’ble Minister to vacate the stay. By the impugned order, the very purpose of the appeal was temporarily frustrated. It is important to notice that the license was not cancelled by the Collector, but it was suspended as per the order dated 13-11-2006, and that too on account of non- compliance of one of the conditions enumerated in the Govt. Resolution dated 22nd July, 2004. Considering this aspect, it is explicit that the impugned order is rendered in breach of the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is unsustainable. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The status quo position, ante the date of impugned order shall be maintained ( 4 ) and the Hon’ble Minister is requested to decide the appeal on merits within period of six (6) months as far as possible. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5393-10