1 wp243.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Bhakhed holding for Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Hon for petitioner, Mr. A.P. Bhakad for respondent no.3 Society and Senior Advocate Mr. P.M. Shah with Mr. S.P. Shah for respondent no.4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. After hearing learned counsel, I am satisfied that cognizance of grievance made by petitioner was taken by respondent no.2 and hence, notice was issued to respondent no.4. By impugned order dated 3rd January, 2011, the respondent no.2-Joint Director has withdrawn 2 wp243.11 the notice issued to respondent no.4. 3. This withdrawal is by reasoned order and in the process, it records certain findings on facts. Advocate Mr. Hon for petitioner is not accepting those findings and according to him, had there being any opportunity to petitioner, the petitioner could have pointed out the business transactions still going on and also the carrying on of the competitive business by the respondent no.4. 4. According to Senior Advocate Mr. Shah, the applications or grievances made by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 even prima facie do not make out any case against the respondent no.4. 5. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2011. 6. The cognizance of grievance made by petitioner was already taken by the respondent no.2. Hence at the instance of respondent no.4 the contention that grievance then made did not make out any case against the present respondent no.4 can not be looked into here. 7. If after taking cognizance, the respondent no.2 wanted to exonerate the respondent no.4 on any count whatsoever, grant of hearing to the petitioner was essential. It is admitted position that such opportunity of 3 wp243.11 hearing was not extended to the petitioner. 8. In view of this, the impugned order dated 03.01.2011 is quashed and set aside. Proceedings moved by the petitioner are restored back to the file of respondent no.2 for its further prosecution in accordance with law. The said respondent shall issue appropriate notices to the petitioner as also to the respondent no.4 before proceeding further in the matter. 9. The respondent no.2 shall attempt to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and in any case by 30th September, 2011. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp 243.11