Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2044 of 2008 M/s. Narayandas Bhoralam & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar, GP for Respondent No. 1 to 4 Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondent No.5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh & : D.K.Deshmukh & : D.K.Deshmukh & N.D.Deshpande, N.D.Deshpande, N.D.Deshpande, JJ JJ JJ 22nd 22nd 22nd April, 2008 April, 2008 April, 2008 P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard Advocates appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to hear Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 because we are not passing any order which will adversely affect them. It is common ground that the order passed by the State Government dated 5-11-2007 in the Revision filed by Respondent No.5 and the order made by the Food Distribution Officer, Pune dated 4-3-2008 to implement the order passed by the State Government in Revision operates against the Petitioner and it is also not in dispute that both the orders were made by the Authority without the Petitioners being given an opportunity of being heard. We find that both the orders have civil 2 consequences and, therefore, the orders could not have been made by the Authorities without granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. The order of the State Government has been made as observed above in the Revision filed by Respondent No.5. To that Revision the Petitioners were not joined as a parties. Therefore, the order passed by the State Government in the Revision dated 5-11-2007 and the order passed by the Food Distribution Officer dated 4-3-2008 to implement the order dated 5-11-2007 are set aside. The Revision filed by the Respondent No.5 is remitted back to the State Government for disposal in accordance with law. All the contentions available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before the appropriate forum. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out within one week. 3. It is clarified that Respondent No.5 shall be at liberty to make an application before the State Government in Revision for leave to join present Petitioner as Respondent in the Revision. In case such an application is made, it shall be decided by the State 3 Government in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (N.D.Deshpande,J) (N.D.Deshpande,J) (N.D.Deshpande,J)