Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1727 OF 2009 Shri Prakash Mukund Patil ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Smt.Preeti B. Walimbe for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the respondent No.2. Mr.P.P.Kakade, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1 State. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Revenue Minister in Revn. Application No.RTS/2708/MN/566/L-6. By this order dated 3.12.2008, the Minister has disposed of the proceedings and directed that the mutation entry should be effective in favour of the respondent. 2. Undisputedly and as apparent from the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Manatralaya, the revision application was fixed for hearing before the minister of state and notices were issued to the parties concerned. This hearing was fixed on 24.9.2008. The petitioner had contended that he cannot attend the hearing since the security at the Mantralaya prevented him from entering the hearing. The petitioner therefore prayed that the matter be adjourned and fixed for hearing at a later date. Accordingly, the Minister of State fixed the hearing on 19.11.2008 and the notice of hearing was issued and served on the petitioner. However, since the Minister was not available on 19.11.2008, it was decided that the hearing should be fixed on an earlier date i.e. on 18.11.2008. This change was intimated to the Collector’s office on 15.11.2008. Thereafter the village Talathi communicated by a letter to the petitioner that the hearing was fixed on 18.11.2008. This notice was allegedly served on the brother of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the petitioner resides in the same house. However, the Talathi has recorded that the petitioner was not present in the house and no acknowledgement of the communication was given by the brother of the petitioner. The Talathi submitted his report to the Tahsildar, who in turn, submitted that the report to the Minister of State. It is in these circumstances that the revision application was heard by the Minister of State. 3. The affidavit also refers that Writ Petition No.178 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner claiming the same relief as sought in the present petition. 4. The legality and the propriety of the order dated 3.12.2008 has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition by contending that he has not afforded a proper hearing. It is submitted by Ms.Walimbe on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of and in any case was not able to attend the hearing on 18.11.2008 since the service was too short. She submits that service on the brother of the petitioner cannot be accepted as a good service on the petitioner and, therefore, the revision application must be heard afresh. 5. I have already adverted to the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department in which he concedes that the matter was fixed on an earlier date. 6. Mr.Suryavanshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 contends that the service has been effected in accordance with Order 5 Rule 15 (Bombay Amendment). He points out that service on a male member of the defendant's family is sufficient and can be treated as good service. He further submits that since the brother of the petitioner was admittedly informed of the matter being fixed on 18.11.2008, it was sufficient service and was in compliance with Order 5 Rule 15. 7. Order 5 Rule 15 provides that, when the defendant cannot for any reason be personally served and has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult male member of the family of the defendant who is residing with him. 8. In my view, this provision will not be applicable at all to the present case. the question herein is not of service of summons but of the notice of the fixed date of hearing. the petitioner was initially informed that the matter will be heard on 19.11.2008 instead of which the hearing took place on 18.11.2008 at 11.00 a.m. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present when the Talathi sought to inform him of the matter and, therefore, the communication to the brother of the petitioner cannot be considered as good service. It is trite that any hearing before the quasi judicial authority must proceed in accordance with rules of natural justice. The person in respect of whom the enquiry is being conducted must have sufficient notice in order to be present at the time of hearing. In the present case, by fixing the date of hearing earlier than the recorded day, there has been a miscarriage of justice. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 10. The parties will appear before the Minister of State on 1.7.2009 at 3.00 p.m. 11. No fresh notice will be issued to either parties as the hearing is now fixed on 1.7.2009. In case this date is not convenient to the revisional authority, at least 48 hours' notice must be given to both parties. 12. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. 13. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2 seeks a stay of this order. In my opinion, that is not necessary. Stay is rejected. ......