1 wp 8201.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8201 OF 2011 Suryakant S/o Hausrao Nagargoje, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Beed. 5. The Tahsildar, Beed, District Beed. 6. Madan S/o Pandurang Nagargoje, Age : 39 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. Respondents 2 wp 8201.11 Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned A. G. P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Shri Nagargoje for the respondent No. 6. 3. The petitioner impugns the order passed by Hon'ble Minister dated 21.09.2011 allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 6 and renewing the license of the respondent No. 6. 4. It is the contention of Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was added as party in the appeal before the Commissioner and so also was heard by the Commissioner and that he had filed caveat before the Hon'ble Minister, no notice was issued to the 3 wp 8201.11 petitioner, nor the petitioner was made party in the revision and in absence of the petitioner the order has been passed. The learned counsel also canvased his arguments on other aspects of the matter. 5. Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that before the Commissioner he was only an intervenor and he was not complainant, so he was not made party. A intervenor cannot claim any right to be issued with notice. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not the complainant. The learned counsel also canvased his argument on other aspects of the matter. 6. Perusal of the roznama before the Commissioner, it is manifest that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the proceedings. The order dated 09.08.2010 and the roznama makes this position clear. Even in the order passed by the Commissioner,the present petitioner was heard. It also appears that the petitioner had filed caveat and no notice was issued to him before the Hon'ble Minister in revision. The petitioner ought to have been issued notice and heard before deciding the said revision by the Hon'ble Minister. On this count only I am inclined to set aside the order impugned in the present writ 4 wp 8201.11 petition. 7. In the light of the above the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before Hon'ble Minister who shall decide the said revision filed by the respondent No. 6 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The parties shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 02nd January, 2012 and the Hon'ble Minister shall make an endevour to decide the said revision expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months. 8. Though the order is being set aside, still as it is submitted that the quota has been released to the respondent No. 6 for last three months. In view of that the said position be maintained till the decision of the revision and the further decision on the continuation of the quota would be as per the decision in the revision passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11