An order without reason is no order in the eye of law.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the Order (Annex. VIII) passed by respondent No.3.

3. Crucial grounds of challenge, amongst various other grounds raised in the petition and orally submitted, are that:

(i) Petitioner was not heard when the respondent No.4 was heard and hence order impugned is bad for violation of principles of natural justice.

(ii) The impugned order does not contain reasons, whatsoever, leading to the conclusions arrived at and judgment given by the respondent NO.3.

4. The contents of Judgment were read over by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. The vernacular text thereof is at pages 62 to 64, while the translation is at pages 65 to 67.

5. On perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it is seen that:

(a) the un-numbered paras 1 to 3 refer to the appearances and the background;

(b) un-numbered Para 4 contains the brief factual background, including that a direction was given in Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2007 to decide the Revision Application within two months by impleading present respondent No. 4 in Revision Application and giving him hearing;

(c) un-numbered para 5 consists of a statement that the order is being passed under section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and (d) last para gives directions, thereby dismissing the Review Application.

6. On the analysis of impugned decision/judgment, learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that the judgment does not disclose that:

(i) the petitioners herein were heard, and

(ii) reasons leading to conclusions and the operative order passed therein.

7. Dealing with the points noted from the submissions of the petitioner and as emerging from perusal of Judgment, the petitioner urged for allowing the Revision Petition by setting aside the Collector's order dated 20th June, 2006.

8. While opposing this prayer, the learned Advocate Mr. M. K. Kulkarni for respondent No.4 has urged that in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2007, Hon'ble Minister was expected to hear the respondent No.4 herein only.

9. Apart from this submission, learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni has tried to urge that the very foundation of the claim of petitioner is lost, since the premises where the liquor business was run by the petitioner, have been demolished. According to Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate, in case of liquor license, the license is always - qua - the person - qua the premises. If the premises are destroyed partly or fully, the license comes to an end, and one has to apply afresh. In this background, according to learned Advocate Mr. Kulkarni, the petition has become infructuous. These facts are disputed by the petitioners during reply.

10. As far as the aspect of reasons in the order is concerned, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has urged that initial reference to facts of the case is a sufficient foundation and the reasons in support of the order.

11. In the midst of hearing, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has also tendered for perusal of Court the record of the case in which the impugned order is passed.

12. This Court has perused the original record. Perusal reveals as follows:(a) At pages 3 to 5 of record, there is an Office Note and thereafter the record pertaining to Review Application is seen.

(b) In the Office Note at Pages 3 to 6, at page 5, the office endorsements are seen.

(c) Hon'bIe Minister has endorsed at page 5 to the effect that "order dated 20th June, 2007 be dispatched."

(d) At page 117, there is an order which bears the signature of Hon'ble Minister - respondent No.3, dated 20th June, 2007.

(e) The order dated 20th June, 2007 referred to at page 5 in Hon'ble Minister's endorsement is the same, which is referred to above at pages 117 to 121.

(f) In the file titled as or Part-2, at pages 109 to 113, a typed and signed order, signed as order dated 31st July, 2007, is seen, which is a replica of order at pages 117, 118 and 119, except last sentence in th