1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6404OF 2009 Navnath s/o. Shekhku Mhaske Age 38 years, Occ. Agril, R/o. Palvan, Tq. And Dist. Beed. .. petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed. 5. Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Palvan, through its Rajendra s/o. Tukaram Mhaske Age, Major, Occ. Agril, R/o. Palvan, Tq. And Dist. Beed. .. Respondent. --- Mr.S.S. Thombare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. C.V. Thombare, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Nandedkar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 10th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th August, 2009 vide which the revision filed by the present petitioner has been rejected. 3] On a complaint filed by the present petitioner against the respondent No.5, that the respondent No.5 was indulging into malpractices, the licence for Fair Price Shop and Kerosene Dealership of the respondent No.5 came to be cancelled by the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the respondent No.5 before the respondent No.3. The said appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision before the State of Maharashtra. In the said revision, initially, an interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner on 3rd August, 2009. 4] It appears that thereafter, vide notice dated 25th August, 2009, the matter was kept for hearing on 26th August, 2009. It is clear from the reecord that the copy of the notice of hearing on 26th August, 2009 was served on the petitioner on 27th August, 2009. On the basis of the hearing 3 conducted on 26th August, 2009, the revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 5] Shri S.S. Thombare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the record it is clear that the order impugned has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He , therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6] Shri C.V. Thombare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 on the contrary submits that the copy of the communication dated 25th August, 2009 was received by the respondent No.5 well in advance and the petitioner had also received the same prior to the date of hearing and as such there was no reason for the petitioner to remain absent at the hearing. 7] Shri Nandedkar, learned AGP also supports the impugned order. 8] It is a settled law that an order inviting adverse civil consequences has to be preceded by the principles of natural justice. However, the principles of natural are required to be followed in true spirit. Merely a farce of following the principles of natural justice would not absolve the authorities of following them in true spirit. In the present case, it appears that though the Honourable Minister has observed that in spite of notice being issued to the petitioner, he has remained absent, It appears from the record that only a farce of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has been 4 made. I am unable to understand as to how it is expected that notice dated 25th August, 2009, fixing the hearing on the very next day could be served to the parties residing at a place about 600 kms away from Bombay. It is also difficult to understand as to how parties could reach Bombay for hearing of the appeal within such a short period. It is clear that there is much more than what meets the eye in the present case. However, since the petitioner has chosen not to join the authorities by their name, I am not inclined to go into that aspect of the matter. However, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice in their true spirit. In the result, the petition has to succeed. Hence, I pass the following order :- 9] The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th August, 2009 in the revision petition filed by the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for hearing it afresh in accordance law. Parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 18th November, 2009. In that view of the matter, the formal notices shall stand waived. Needless to state that, after the parties appear before him, the Honourable Minister would decide the revision afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] 5 Grt/-