ORDER

Ahluwalia, J:- 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26.5.2023 (Annexure-P/7) and 27.5.2023 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the Collector (Excise) Bhopal, by which the license to run the liquor shop awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled and fresh e-tender has been issued.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under the name and style “Rathore and Mehta Associates”. Initially there were three partners namely, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehta, Shri Sushil Singh and Shri Surendra Rathore. The petitioner was under obligation to submit the bank guarantee which was done by the petitioner firm. As per the partnership deed, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehta had 45% share in profit and loss, Shri Surendra Rathore had 45% share in profit and loss and Shri Sushil Singh had 10% share in profit and loss. It is the case of the petitioner that without the information, knowledge and consent of other partners, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehta entered into a memorandum of understanding on 04/05/2023 i.e. subsequent to the submission of the bank guarantee and inducted one more person namely Shri Anand Tripathi as a partner and by the said memorandum of understanding, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehta reduced his share in profit and loss to 30% and the remaining 15% share in profit and loss was given to Shri Anand Tripathi. It is submitted that father of Anand Tripathi namely Shri Narayan Tripathi had assured the petitioner that he would submit the bank guarantee and accordingly, a bank guarantee dated 7.4.2023 (Annexure P/6) was submitted which was purportedly issued by the Union Bank of India, Thana Dara, Kalimpong, Siliguri, West Bengal. It is submitted that it appears that the respondents tried to verify the genuineness of the bank guarantee and ultimately by order dated 26.5.2023, Annexure-P/7, informed the petitioner that the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner was a fake bank guarantee and accordingly, cancelled the license awarded to the petitioner and also directed for registration of FIR against the partners. It is submitted that on the very next date i.e. on 27.5.2023, Annexure-P/8, impugned etender notice has been issued for award of license to run composite liquor shops at Lalghati, District Bhopal.

3. Challenging the impugned order dated 26.5.2023, Annexure-P/7, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said order has been issued in utter violation of Section 31(1A) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915. An opportunity of hearing should have been awarded to the petitioner before cancelling the license. However, the same has not been done and the license has been cancelled by the impugned order. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from the impugned order dated 26.5.2023, Annexure-P/7, an e-mail was received on 26.5.2023 from the concerning bank that bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner has not been issued by the said bank and immediately thereafter on the very same day impugned order dated 26.5.2023 was passed.

4. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner itself has been defrauded by one of the partner Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mehta. In fact father of Anand Tripathi had assured the petitioner that he would get the bank guarantee prepared. The petitioner was not aware of the fact that father of Shri Anand Tripathi has prepared a forged bank guarantee. It is further submitted that if the respondents have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, then they would have explained each and every aspect of the matter and could have furnished a fresh bank guarantee. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Gwalior Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 498. It is further submitted that although the order under