1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6415 OF 2007 1.Shri.Laxman Nivrutti More & ors. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Shri.Vantakesh Sahebrao More & ors ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.G.Ketkar, for Petitioners. Mr.K.Y.Patil i/b. P.N.Joshi, for Respondent 1. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondents 3 to 5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 18th JANUARY,2008. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By the order impugned in the petition which 2 is passed by the State Government, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik dated 5.5.2007 has been set aside. By that order the Divisional Commissioner has held that the petitioners are not disqualified to be the members of Shirasgaon Grampanchayat. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government has decided the Revision filed by the respondent no.1 without granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. If one goes by the order of the State government, that order states that the Minister heard both the sides. The petitioners have made categorical statement in the petition that they had not been served with any notice of hearing and therefore, they did not appear before the State Government. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government. In paragraph 2 of that affidavit, it is stated that a notice for hearing was sent to the petitioners, but it is not stated by what mode the notice was transmitted, it is also not stated that the petitioners were duly served with the notice. Thus, it is clear from the record that there is no documentary evidence available to show that the 3 petitioners were served with the notice of hearing before the State Government and therefore, the case of the petitioners that he was not served with the notice, has to be accepted. It appears that the order has been made by the State Government without serving notice of hearing on the petitioners, therefore, the order of the State Government is violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore, is liable to be set aside. In my opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- 3. The order impugned in the petition dated 19.7.2007 passed by the State Government is set aside. The State government is directed to dispose of the revision filed by the respondent no.1 in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of being heard to both the sides. For that purpose, both the parties are directed to appear before the State Government on 18.2.2008. Then the State Government shall fix the date of hearing and hear the parties and make order in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of. 4 ---