1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2070 OF 2009 Magasvargiya Matsya Vyvsaik Sahakari Sanstha Limited at Garada, Post Brahmni Tq Kannad Dist Aurangabad through its Chairman Bhausaheb s/o Tryambak Rathod age 33 years, Occ. Fisherman, R/o At Garada, Post Brahmni, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Commissioner of Fisheries) Taraporewala Aquarium, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Churni Road, Mumbai 400 002. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, Aurangabad Region, Collector Office Premises, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. 4. District Fisheries Development Officer, Collector Office Premises, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 5. Aurangabad District Tank Contract Distribution Committee, C/o District Fisheries Development Officer, Collector Office premises, Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad. 6. Jagdamba Magasvargiya Matsya Vyvsaik Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Hiverkheda (Gautala), Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad through its Secretary. 7. Mrs. Dixit, Section Officer, Officer of Commissioner of Fisheries, Taraporewala Aquarium, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Churni Road, Mumbai 400 002. Respondents Shri P.R. Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.H. Borade, AGP for R-1 to 4 Shri V.D. Sapkal h/f Mr. S.W. Mundhe and Mr N.R. Salunke, adv. for R-6 R-5, 7 served. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard. Rule. With the consent of the parties matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The only grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner-society has not been extended an opportunity of hearing while taking decision on revision application, decided on 31.03.2009. It is also pointed out that the respondent No.6 has been allotted fishing rights after 3 rendering decision by the respondent No.2, for a period of 5 years in view of order issued on 21.04.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner-society is entitled for being allotted authorization to exercise fishing rights in respect of the tank in question. Since the petitioner was not heard by the appropriate authority while rendering decision, serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. While entertaining the petition, this Court has granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause C-1 by order dated 17.04.2009. All the parties appearing before me agree that the matter can be re-considered by the respondent No.2, and till then arrangement as directed by the High Court would continue. In this view of the matter, the respondent No.2 is directed to render decision on the representation made by the petitioner on 26.06.2008, after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of one month from today. In the meantime interim relief granted by this Court in terms of prayer clause C-1 shall remain operative. It is also made clear that order issued by the competent authority in respect of allotment of fishing rights in favour of respondent No.6 society, shall be subject to final decision that would be rendered by respondent No.2 in the instant matter. All parties before me agree to appear before the respondent No.2 on 21.12.2009 . With the directions set out above petition stands allowed. Rule is 4 accordingly made absolute. 3. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending civil application do not survive hence stands disposed off. 4. Parties to act on authenticated copy. ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/2070.09