(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2009 Subrao s/o. Bhagwan Kedar, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Namewadi, Post Shindi, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Ld. Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 3. The District Supply Officer, Beed, Dist. Beed. 4. The Tahsildar, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. 5. Mohan s/o. Dnyanoba Vaybase, R/o. Namewadi, Post Shindi, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. (2) .......................... Mr. H.P. Jadhav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate, for respondent no.5. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The respondent no.5 is running a fair price shop at village Namwadi (Post : Shindi, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed). Since there were various complaints regarding irregularities committed by the respondent no.5, the present petitioner and other villagers filed a complaint with the respondent no.4. After due enquiry was conducted by the respondent no. 4, a report was submitted by him to the respondent no.3, pointing out therein various irregularities committed by the present respondent no.5. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 4th August 2008, suspended the authorization granted in favour of respondent no.5. The order passed by the respondent no.3 was challenged by the respondent no. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, who confirmed (3) the order passed by the respondent no.3, on 12th May 2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no.5 went in revision before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 allowed the said revision by the impugned order by observing that though the irregularities were established against respondent no.5, in order to give him one more opportunity, the amount of deposit made by him with the State Government, shall stand forfeited and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- shall be levied upon him. 4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner though had filed a caveat, was not served with any notice of hearing by the respondent nos.1 and 2, before the impugned order was passed. This position is not disputed in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. 5. It is an undisputed position, that the action initiated by the respondent no.4, Tahsildar, was at the instance of the villagers including the present petitioner. Not only this, but the present petitioner was also a party before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. It is settled principle of law, that an order adverse to the interest of a party cannot be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party. From the pleadings, it is clear that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order dated 31st July 2009 was passed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. (4) 6. Hence, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 31st July 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 in Case No. VAM-1609/PK 421-09/C.S.21, is quashed and set aside. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to hear and decide the revision filed by the respondent no.5 afresh, on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is needless to state that before passing any order, the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall give an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5448