JUDGMENT:- 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. 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 the operative order. (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 the operative order. (g) On perusal of Office Note referred to in foregoing sub-para (b), it is seen that barring first ten lines and last sentence thereof and introducing about ten words to suit the adoption of contents of a note in the body of Judgment as the judgment of Hon'ble Minister, entire note is copied and put into the format of Judgment. (h) This 'cut and paste' craft work is visible barely by comparing the contents and without special expertise and efforts. (i) While this 'cut and paste' work is done to suppress whatever is done, additions done by pencil in the note to convert the note in a Judgment are retained and are evident. 13. In the aforesaid background, it has been argued that Hon'ble Minister has applied the mind and was satisfied with what he was doing. However, when the Judgment is looked at, it is evident that it suffers from the defect of failing to incorporate even one word or one line of reason or reasons for respondent No. 3's arriving at the conclusions for which the order is passed. 14. In this situation, referring to all other points on which the order is challenged shall amount to spending the time of the Court for no warrant of situation. 15. An order without reason is no order in the eye of law. It denies to a reader of Judgment, whether the party to lis or a higher or lower forum, the reasons to know as to why the Authority has reached to a particular conclusion. This proposition need not be supported even by a single judgment, much less by catena. 16. When in the light of what this Court has found as to the texture of judgment where absence of reasons is obvious and writ large, it would be totally unnecessary to deal with various other grounds raised in the petition challenging impugned order as well in support thereof defences put forth by the respondents. 17. 16. When in the light of what this Court has found as to the texture of judgment where absence of reasons is obvious and writ large, it would be totally unnecessary to deal with various other grounds raised in the petition challenging impugned order as well in support thereof defences put forth by the respondents. 17. Though petitioner has prayed that the impugned order as well the order of Collector should be set aside, there is no reason to go into the merits of the case when a statutory forum of revision is still open and the Hon'ble Minister was under an obligation to examine the facts, questions of law, and decide the case. 18. It shall, therefore, suffice if the case is remanded to the respondent No. 3 for hearing and disposal according to law by setting aside the impugned Judgment which this Court has found to be rendered without recording reasons. 19. In the result, the petitioner has to succeed on the grounds of :(a) total want of recording of reasons, and (b) failure to reflect giving of an opportunity of hearing to both or all involved parties. 20. It shall suffice to say that now after remand, the respondent No.3 shall give to the parties involved a reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing, and shall pass a well reasoned order. 21. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (2), and Revision Application No. RVN-ll07/RA-8/EXC-3 is remanded to respondent No.3 for hearing and disposal according to law. 22. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.