-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 134 of 2008 1. Ramesh Sambhaji Devre and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Shri H.S.Venegavkar for petitioners. Shri R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1,2 and 4 Shri Vikrant Yadav for respondent no.3 Shri J.D.Khairnar for respondent no.5. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 10th January, 2008 10th January, 2008 10th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mentioned. Not on Board. 2. In the light of the submissions made in the petition and more particularly the complaint that the Minister proceeded with the revision application without the petitioner before me remaining present, the matter is taken up forthwith. 3. It is pointed out by Shri Venegavkar that when the matter was placed before the Minister on 10th December, 2007, the petitioners’ Advocate submitted an application seeking adjournment on the ground that writ petition -2- filed by respondent no.5 is pending before the Court and the petitioners intend to file a reply to the same. The office of the Hon’ble Minister accepted the said application and informed the petitioner that next date will be communicated. 4. However, the petitioners received the order dated 31st December, 2007 passed by the Minister, wherein, the adjournment application was rejected and the main revision application was heard in absence of the petitioners or their Advocate and he disposed of the same. The petitioners are prejudiced by this course of action because even the stay has been vacated. Now, the order passed under section 73(1)(AB) read with Rule 58(a) of the Rules would become final. 5. Shri Patne appearing for the State submits that the matter was taken up because the petitioners were delaying the proceedings. That is the complaint even by respondent no.5. However, if the adjournment application was submitted and accepted, then, fairness demands that atleast adjournment should have been refused in presence of the petitioners and thereafter the learned Revisional Authority -3- could have proceeded exparte. That has not admittedly been done. Even the application for adjournment has been refused behind the back of the petitioners. Even the adjournment application has been rejected in absence of the petitioners and the main revision application itself has been heard and disposed of. The order under challenge is, therefore, clearly contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is wholly vitiated in as much as the Minister was obliged to consider the request of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 6. In the result, the order under challenge is set aside. The revision application preferred by the petitioners is restored to file of the revisional authority for decision afresh in accordance with law. Until the revision application is heard and disposed of the order passed on 1st October, 2007 by Revisional Authority shall continue. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. 7. The apprehension of respondent no.5 can be taken care of by directing the parties to appear before the Revisional Authority on 17th January, 2008 and the Revisional Authority then decide -4- the revision application within four months from the date of appearance of parties. Needless to state that if the petitioners seek unnecessary adjournments and do not cooperate in the matter, the revisional authority can proceed exparte. 8. Petition disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)