1 13.wp-7637-11.sxw jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7637 OF 2011 Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Uma G. Wagle for Petitioner. Ms. A.D.Vhatkar AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr. Mandar Goswami for Respondent No.2 Mr. Karan Bhosale for Respondent No.3 CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respective respondents. 2 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the respondent no.2. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the earlier occasion, 2 13.wp-7637-11.sxw the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 5593 of 2011 challenging the communication dated 4.7.2011 from Scientist-E, Bureau of Indian Standard Marks Department, Mumbai-400001, whereby the petitioner was not permitted to mark and dispatch their product Infant Milk Substitute- Specifications as per IS 14433 : 2007 for which petitioner was granted licence which is valid upto 15.4.2012. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.7.2011 and it was observed therein that the petitioner shall make a representation to the Deputy Director General (Western Region) Mumbai within a period of one week from the date of the order and within two weeks thereafter, the authority will give opportunity to the petitioner for hearing and shall pass reasoned order within one month from the date of the order. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 28.7.2011 to the Deputy Director General which was disposed of by the authority vide impugned order dated 19.8.2011. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in order dated 21.7.2011 has 3 13.wp-7637-11.sxw specifically observed that the Deputy Director General shall pass reasoned order. However, the impugned order passed by the authority is cryptic and there are no reasons given by the authority. 4 It is in these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 on instructions from respondent no.2, states that respondent no. 2 agrees that the impugned order may be set aside by consent and the matter may be remanded back to the Deputy Director General (Western Region) Mumbai for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner afresh and he shall pass appropriate reasoned order by following principles of natural justice, within a period of one month from today. 5 In the backdrop of the above referred fact, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.8.2011 by consent. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director General (Western Region) Mumbai for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.7.2011 afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from today and he shall pass a reasoned order. 4 13.wp-7637-11.sxw 6 With this observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA,J.]