1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6835 OF 2009 Digamber s/o. Gangaram Doiphode .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 14th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th September, 2009, passed by the respondent NO.1, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.4, challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2. 2 2] The order impugned, is only an order of remand. The learned appellate authority has found that the District Supply Officer, while passing the order against the respondent No.4 has not followed the principles of natural justice and has, therefore, remitted back the matter to him, to consider the matter afresh after following the due procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the petition in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. It is directed that the respondent No.2 would complete the proceedings on remand, within a period of 4 weeks from today. If the petitioner seeks intervention in the proceedings before the District Supply Officer, he may make an application before the said authority, which may be considered in accordance with law. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-