BALIRAM BUDDULALJI KAMALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged an order made by respondent no.3 on 13.6.2007 issuing ad interim injunction on the application for grant of stay in pending Appeal No.213 of 2007. F.L. Licence as well C.L. Licence originally in the name of one Buddulal is the bone of contention between the rival parties to the present petition. The petitioner filed an application on 21.3.2006 before the Collector, Nagpur, against respondent no.4 contending that his signatures were forged on various documents by respondent no.4 and under that the said joint licence C.L. and F.L. III was transferred in the name of respondent no.4 fraudulently. The Collector, Nagpur, held enquiry and finally made an order on 23.5.2007 directing the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for getting the issue about fraud etc. adjudicated and till then kept the said licence under suspension. After passing of this order, the petitioner lodged a caveat with the appellate authority, i.e. respondent no.3 on 25.5.2007. On 13.6.2007 at about 1-00 p.m. the petitioner received a letter from Advocate Mrs.Veena Thadhani, which was a letter dated 11.6.2007, intimating that the petitioner's appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act (for short the Act) as well as stay application would be circulated before the appellate authority for necessary interim order on 13.7.2007 at 10-00 a.m. The petitioner issued a FAX message to the said advocate that since the notice itself was received on 13.7.2007 at 1-00 p.m. it was not possible to attend the hearing at Mumbai. In the FAX message it was also mentioned that the petitioner's son Nitin has spoken to the said Advocate on mobile phone about his inability to attend the hearing at Mumbai. The appellate authority, however, made the impugned order and issued ad interim injunction. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr.R.S.Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions :