1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6800 OF 2009 Dnyan Sandesh Sarvajanik Wachanalaya, Rayawadi, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur, Through its Secretary, Shri. Vyankat s/o Sheshrao Kedar, R/o-Rayawadi, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Library Directorate, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director, Library Directorate, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 3) The Assistant Library Director, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.V. Gore Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner was running a public library. The Petitioner was getting Government grant under the scheme. The officers of Respondent No.3 visited the library and found that the library was closed in the working hours and after noticing this deficiency, the impugned order dated 15th May, 2009 was passed by cancelling the sanction granted to the public library. 3. The counsel by placing reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Regional Director, ESIC, 2009 D.G.L.S. (Soft) Page 1081, submits that the order is without notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was not heard and therefore the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back. 3 4. An affidavit in reply is filed by the Respondents. The learned A.G.P. submits that under the impugned order, the Petitioner would not be getting further grant from the Government under the scheme. According to the counsel for the Petitioner, an amount of Rs.19,000/- per year is given by way of Government grant. 5. It is true that the Authorities could have issued show cause notice and heard the Petitioner before cancelling the sanction. The order is passed practically a year before. The counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is still running public library for the benefit of the villagers. In the facts of the case, instead of setting aside the impugned order, we observe that the Petitioner is entitled to file fresh representation before the Authorities concerned. If the Authorities, after due enquiry, are satisfied that there is no other public library having Government sanction and grant in the said village, and the Petitioner is satisfying 4 now the conditions under the Government policy, the order of cancellation be reviewed by recalling the same. This should be subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Authorities. The Petitioner is entitled to file such representation within FOUR WEEKS from today. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp6800.09