The court reinforced that authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity for a hearing, and cannot rely on grounds not specified in the show cause notice.

Judgment :

( Per Sandesh D. Patil, J)

1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

3) Mr. S.L. Babar, learned A.G.P. waives notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4) By the present Petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the impugned communication dated 28^th November 2025, issued by the Respondent No.3 on approval of the Respondent No.2-The Collector, State Excise Department, Pune.

5) This matter appeared before us on 8^th December 2025, when issued notices to the Respondents. When the matter appeared before us on 15^th Decmeber 2025, Mrs. Veena Thadhani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners stated that despite the fact, that notices were issued by this Court, the Respondent No.2 arbitrarily and highhandedly, passed an Order dated 9^th December 2025, thereby suspending F.L.-II License of the Petitioner. She sought the consequential amendment to the Petition.

6) On 15^th December, 2025, considering what was disclosed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, we had directed Mr. Sanjay Kohle (Inspector of Excise, Pune) and Mr. Brahmanond Redekar (Sub-Inspector of Excise, Pune) to remain personally present on 16^th December 2025.

7) Today, when the matter appeared before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that the entire exercise was carried out with utmost haste precisely at the behest of a local MLA. She further stated that although the matter appeared before this Court on 8^th December 2025, and despite the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, being represented by the A.G.P. on 9^th December 2025, the Order; subsequently impugned; in the Petition was passed. She submitted that the Order was passed aribitrarily, highhandedly and is an example of colourable exercise of power. She further stated that the Order was under the direction and influence of an influential MLA. She further stated that the Petitioners were issued license in question in the year 2009 and for last 16 years, the Petitioners were conducting their business. She stated that the entire exercise was undertaken at the behest of a local MLA as well as to support other liquor shops/bars, which had come up in the same building, where the shop of the Petitioners is situated. She stated that the Petitioners were not given a hearing in the matter and that it was only the Petitioners, who were targeted. She lastly stated that the notice dated 28^th November 2025 was issued on the premise, that certain complaints were received from the occupants of the society, however, the Order dated 9^th December 2025, was passed on a totally different ground.

8) Mrs. Thadani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that despite being fully aware that hearing of the present Petition was scheduled on 8^th December 2025 and despite being aware that the High Court commences its work on 11.00 a.m., the Respondents intentionally, deliberately and highhandedly scheduled the hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 8^th December 2025, obviously with an ulterior motive of frustrating and prejudicing the proceeding before this Court. She further submits that the Petitioners could not attend the hearing scheduled on 8^th December, 2025, as they were present before this Court. She states that in any event, the Petitioners were not provided with a complete set of material documents forming the basis of the proceeding, till date, and hence, the Petitioners could not have participated in the proceeding, effectively. She states that the Order dated 9^th December 2025, is passed behind the Petitioners’ back.

9) Mr. S.L. Babar, learned A.G.P. for the Respondents supported th