1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1892 OF 2009 Pahadibaba Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jamner, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, Through it's Chairman, Khushal Tukaram Bhoi, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. At Post Jamner, Tq.Jamner, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, and others. .. Respondents ... Mrs. A.S. Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Umakant Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. R.T. Nagargose,Advocate for respondent No.4. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 20th JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective parties, matter is 2 taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21-02-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 6/2008. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner passed order dated 21-02-2009 without considering the merits of the matter. He dismissed the revision application only on the ground of non co-operative act and strange attitude of the of the Chairman of the petitioner society at the time of hearing on 21-02-2009. 3. Along with learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the order dated 21-02-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 6/2008. In Para 2, the Commissioner observed that the 3 Chairman of the petitioner society, today (21-02-2009) submitted an application for adjournment on the ground that his Advocate is unable to remain present on that date. On the said application, the Commissioner granted 8 days time to file their written arguments. Immediately in Para 3, the Commissioner observed that for non co-operative act and strange attitude of the Chairman of the petitioner society, the application does not deserve to be heard and decide on merits. Though the learned Commissioner granted 8 days time to the petitioner on 21-02-2009 for filing their written arguments, he dismissed the revision application on the same day itself. This itself shows that the learned Commissioner of Fisheries have not decided the matter on merits. 4. In the interest of justice, it is necessary to set aside the order dated 21-02-2009 directing the Commissioner of Fisheries, M.S. Mumbai, to hear the Revision Application No. 4 6/2008, after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 5. The order dated 21-02-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries, Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 6/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said authority for hearing afresh. The petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred only) towards costs, to respondent No. 4 within three weeks from today. 6. Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/JUL09/wp1892.09