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.

3. FACTS : 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.

4. ARGUMENTS : Mr.R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions :

(i) The impugned order made by the Commissioner is in the nature of injunction and the appellate authority under Section 137 of the Act does not possess such power of issuing injunction.

(ii) The appellate authority ought to have ensured proper service on the petitioner before issuing the said ex parte order, particularly when the petitioner had lodged a caveat well in advance and the counsel for respondent no.4 was also aware about the same. Even though there is no provision for lodging caveat before the appellate authority under section 137 of the Act, interest of justice and fair play demands that as and when such caveat is lodged, the party lodging the caveat should be heard before passing any ex parte interim order.

(iii) By way of practice, caveats are being accepted, entertained in almost all quasi judicial and even administrative proceedings and as a matter of fact, as transparency in the proceedings, the parties lodging caveat are heard before ad interim order is passed.

(iv) In the instant case, counsel for respondent no.4 issued a letter dated 11.6.2007 which was received by the petitioner on 13.7.2007 at 1-00 p.m. at Saoner and hearing on the said application was to take place on the same day, as informed by the counsel. This was an act of impossibility and, therefore, there being breach of principles of natural justice, and the order being so patent, relying on the decision in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh reported in AIR 1958 SC 86, the writ petition can be entertained by this Court.

(v) The Collector had merely put the licence under suspension directing the parties to get the issue adjudicated from the competent civil court and therefore the impugned order granting ad interim injunction is without jurisdiction. An order without jurisdiction can always be put to challenge in these proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued on the merits of the matter