1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2008. Mrs. Sanyogita Kashinath Shetye (Through Power of Attorney K.J.Shetye) Babino Bldg. Alto Fondem, Ribander, Goa. .. Petitioner. Versus. 1. The State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, 2. The Commissioner of Excise Government of Goa. .. Respondents Nav-Gauri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Porvorim Goa. .. Intervener. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Fria, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.Menezes, Advocate for the Intervener. Coram :- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date : - 21 th August, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, by consent, made returnable forthwith. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the learned Chief Secretary on 9.2.2008 rejecting his appeal against the order passed by 2 the Excise Commissioner. The petitioner's grievance is that the Chief Secretary considered the application for intervention by respondent No.3. On the same day, the Chief Secretary heard the matter i.e. on 8.2.2008 and the Chief Secretary passed the impugned order on 9.2.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that this order was passed on the basis of documents furnished by the respondent No.3 as intervener without the petitioner being provided with the material, on which the Chief Secretary had placed reliance. 2. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 stated that all this material was available to the petitioner, he has not been able to point out that before the hearing of the appeal commenced before the Chief Secretary a copy of intervention application or the supporting documents were made available to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically stated in paras. 28 to 31 of the petition that, the petitioner had not been provided with a copy of intervention application or the supporting documents. Respondent No.3 had responded to these pleas by an affidavit-in-reply dated 3.4.2008. In paragraph 17, respondent No.3 stated that he was not able to comment on the procedure adopted by the appellate authority. After having said so, it is indeed unfortunate that the respondent No.3 should have chosen to state in affidavit dated 12.6.2008 in paragraph 5 to the following effect. 3 “ I specifically deny that the copies of intervention application and the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 were not furnished to the petitioner.” It is unfortunate that the respondent No.3 chose to use double negatives by denying that the documents were not furnished, rather than coming straight and stating as to when the documents were furnished. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of knowing the documents on which the Chief Secretary placed reliance while rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Chief Secretary shall rehear the petitioner. It may not be now necessary to furnish the petitioner with intervention application or a copy of supporting documents, since the petitioner has access to all the material, which has been filed on record of this petition. The Chief Secretary shall decide the appeal within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. R. C. CHAVAN, J SMA