FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7453 OF 2008 ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|___________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State. 2 This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 17th June, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in R.T.S. Revision No.89 of 2005. 3 It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts of the matter since the impugned order is passed without hearing the matter on merits. 4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ground No.(X) at page 17 of this petition, which reads thus: “X) It ought to have been considered that the petitioner was not aware about the exact legal status and position of Revision pending before the respondent no.2, as the Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner died during the pendency of said Revision. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent no.2 without there being any opportunity to the petitioner to represent her case or opportunity to petitioner to represent through or by person or any other legal representative, is not given and as such the order passed by the respondent no.2 is bad in law.” 5 On perusal of the ground No.(X) in the petition reproduced above, I feel that there is considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after hearing the learned A.G.P., I am of the considered view that since there is no adjudication of the revision on merits, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the same authority for consideration afresh. 6 Having been satisfied by the grounds raised by the petitioner that due to death of the earlier Counsel appearing for the petitioner in revision, the proceedings in the revision went unattended, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7 Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th June, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in R.T.S. Revision No.89 of 2005 is quashed and set aside and the revision is restored to the file and remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik for fresh hearing of R.T.S. Revision No.89 of 2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will appear before the revisional authority on 10th September, 2009. Since considerable time has been lapsed, it would be desirable that the revisional authority shall decide the revision within four months from today. Petition is allowed accordingly and disposed of. (S.S. SHINDE, J). 14.08.2009. PLK/#