1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7262 OF 2009 1. M/s Guruprasad Oil Depot } A registered partnership firm } Having its office at Plot No. 20, } Ganesh Colony, Sakri Road, } Dhule, Through its partner } Atul Rangnath Ahirrao } Age : 43 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : CTS No.1473,Lane No. 2, } Near Rajendra Lodge, Dhule } Tq. & Dist. Dhule. } 2. Atul Rangnath Ahirrao } Age : 43 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : CTS No.1473,Lane No. 2, } Near Rajendra Lodge, Dhule } Tq. & Dist. Dhule. } 3. Devang S/o Narendra Shah } Age : 38 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : Lane No. 1, Opp. Rajwade } Bank, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through its Principal Secretary } Food, Civil Supplies and } Consumer Protection Department } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 2 2. The Hon’ble Minister } Food, Civil Supplies and } Consumer Protection Department } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 3. The Additional Commissioner } (Supply), Nasik Division, } Nasik. } 4. The District Supply Officer } Dhule, Dist. Dhule. } 5. Shridhar Baburao Shinde } Age : 69 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : Plot No. 20, Ganesh Colony, } Sakri Road,Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, A.G.P. for State. Mr. M.T.Pise, holding for Mr. V.M.Lomte,Advocate for Respondent no. 5. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 11/12/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners impugns the Judgment and Order passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Food, Civil 3 Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - the respondent no. 2 herein, thereby allowing the Revision filed by the respondent no. 5 herein. 3. According to the petitioners, Respondent no. 5 was originally allotted semi wholesale kerosene dealership for Dhule Taluka in the year 1980. According to them, a partnership deed was executed on 15/10/2000 in the name of petitioner no. 1 – firm. The said deed has been signed by respondent no. 5 along with petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The Respondent no. 5 himself subsequently made an application on 1/12/2000 for transferring the said dealership in the name of petitioner no. 1. Further, according to them, subsequently respondent no. 5 retired from the said partnership. It is the case of the petitioners that on 8/1/2001, the competent authority transferred the said dealership in favour of petitioner no. 1 Company. On 10/12/2007, respondent no. 5 moved an application before respondent no. 4 contending therein that the petitioner no. 2 by fabricating the form, got transferred licence in the name of partnership firm i.e. petitioner no. 1. Respondent no. 4 vide its order dated 29/9/2008, has rejected the application of respondent no. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, an Appeal was preferred before Respondent no. 3. The same was rejected as not tenable. Subsequently, the Revision came to be filed by respondent no. 5 before respondent no. 2. The said Revision is allowed vide impugned Order dated 28/8/2009. Hence present petition. 4 4. Mr. Dhorde, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Revision has been decided by Respondent no. 2 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He submits that though the order states that a notice was issued to the petitioners, from the information received by the petitioner under the Right of Information Act, if would show that the petitioners were not originally made party respondents in the Revision and that though subsequently a notice was sought to be served to them, it was not in fact served. 5. Mr. Pise, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 submits that petitioner no. 2 herein by using the fabricated documents, had managed to get the licence transferred in the name of petitioner no. 1. He submits that the dealership was being continued in the premier of respondent no. 5 and as such there was no occasion for him to doubt the illegal act done by the petitioner no. 2. He submits that only in the year 2007, when he was issued a notice of enquiry regarding the transfer of licence in other premier, he came to know about the fraud played by petitioner no. 2 and thereafter he has moved an application. He submits that there is no provision, which permits a transfer of licence in the name of individual to a firm. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in the facts of the present case. 5 6. It is one of the basic facet of principles of natural justice that no prejudicial order to the rights of a party can be passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Not only this, but the principles of natural justice are required to be observed in their true spirit and mere farce of observing them can not absolve authorities from following them in its true spirit. The perusal of record, which is on the basis of the information received from respondent no. 1, on the application of the petitioner under Right of Information Act, would reveal that initially in the Revision filed by respondent no. 5 herein, only respondent nos. 3 and 4 were made as party respondents. Even the initial notices were served only to these respondents. Only for the first time on 24/8/2009, it appears that a notice is sought to be served to the petitioners regarding the hearing on 28/7/2009. What is relied on by the authorities, is a Fax message sent by the Desk Officer, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to the District Supply Officer , Dhule directing him to issue notices to the parties of hearing on 28/7/2009. However, from the document placed on record dated 9/10/2008, which is annexed at Exh. N to the petition, would reveal that there was nothing on record to show that the notices of hearing dated 28/7/2009 were served to the petitioners. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the observation made by the respondent no. 2 that in spite of notice 6 being issued to the petitioners, they were absent, is not correct. The record speaks contrary. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the order impugned has been passed without following principles of natural justice. The same is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The petition is, therefore, allowed on this short ground. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to go into the other rival contentions raised at the Bar, in as much as any observation on merit, would prejudice the rights of the parties before the revisional authority. 8. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. The matter is remitted back to Respondent no. 2 for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The parties to appear before Respondent no. 2 on 6/1/2010. As such, the requirement of formal notice shall stands waived. Respondent no. 2 – the Hon’ble Minister would decide the matter on remand within the period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties in the light of the observations made herein. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7262.09