(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7591 OF 2009 1. Bhagwantrao s/o. Narayanrao Ghadge Deshmukh, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Aland Tahat Fulambri, Taluka : Fulambri, District : Aurangabad. 2. Annasaheb s/o. Dashrath Jadhav, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Aland Tahat Fulambri, Taluka : Fulambri, District : Aurangabad. 3. Rajendra s/o. Kondiba Wankhede, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Fulambri, Taluka : Fulambri, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Minister, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. (2) 2. The Minister, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 3. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. 4. Radhakisan s/o. Dhanaji Wagh, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Vadodbazar, Taluka : Fulambri, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. Y.V. Kakade, Advocate, for respondent no.4. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2009. (3) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th October 2009, passed by the respondent no.2, in File No. VAM-1607/237/FN-150/C.S.-21, thereby allowing the revision filed by the respondent no.4. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the impugned order is passed by the respondent no.2 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, though they were intervenors in the proceedings by way of revision filed by the respondent no.4 herein. 4. It is submitted by Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Y.V. Kakade, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, that the notice of hearing of revision was already served upon the petitioners and, as such, no grievance could be made in this regard. 5. However, perusal of the documents submitted by the respondent no.4 himself, on record i.e. notice dated 27th July 2009, would reveal that the notice of hearing which was fixed on 28th July 2009 at 12 Noon, was served upon the respondent no.4 on 27th July 2009. It appears to be admitted position, that the order came to be passed without hearing the present petitioners who are affected by the (4) order passed in revision. 6. It is thus clear that the impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 14th October 2009, passed by the respondent no.2, in File No. VAM-1607/237/FN-150/C.S.-21, thereby allowing the revision filed by the respondent no.4, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for deciding it afresh in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners, so also, the respondent no.4. (ii) Parties shall remain present before respondent no.2 on 6th January 2010. As such, formal notice shall stand waived. (iii) It is made clear that the respondent no.2 shall decide the revision filed by the respondent no.4, on its own merits, after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. (iv) It is further made clear that all points raised by the petitioners, as well as, respondent no.4 are kept open to be adjudicated by the respondent no.2. (5) 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to act upon. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7591