1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2688 OF 2010 (Jaiprakash Narayandasji Sarda .vs. National Textiles Corporation (Mah.North) Ltd., Mumbai and anr.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 17, 2011. Heard Mr.B.N.Mohta, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.R.B.Puranik, Adv. for respondent nos.1A & B and Mr.T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. The matter was heard earlier and was required to be adjourned because of ambiguity apparent in the concluding part of resolution passed on Item No.10.10 by the Asset Sale Committee of respondent no.1/NTC. The said Committee is respondent no.1-B before this Court. Today, we have again heard the respective Counsel. It is clear that decision to forfeit EMD was to be taken after sending a prior notice of forfeiture to the party. It, therefore, appears that, looking to the civil consequences, 2 respondent no.1-B had decided to extend some opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In this situation, the impugned communication dt.20.5.2010 falls short to meet with the requirement. Hence, we quash and set aside the said communication dt.20.5.2010. We permit respondent no.1-B to give petitioner appropriate opportunity in this respect. Mr.B.N.Mohta, Adv. is relying upon the Division Bench Judgments reported at 2008 (6) AIR Bom R 378 (DB), M/s. Sundarsons and Ors. vs. State Of Maharashtra and Ors. and at 2009 (1) ALL MR 343, Smt. Jaikumari Amarbahadursingh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and another to point out how action if taken by respondent nos.1-A & B is contrary to law. We find that this aspect can be left for consideration to respondent no.1-B. The petitioner to make appropriate representation to respondent no.1-B within a period of four weeks from today and if such representation is made, respondent no.1-B shall then proceed to consider it and if it finds necessary, it shall hear the petitioner before taking any further decision in the matter. 3 The petition is, thus, partly allowed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order duly authenticated be supplied to the learned Counsel for the respective parties. JUDGE JUDGE jais