1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2065 OF 2009 1. Kundlik Sahadeo Mhaske Age 56 years, Occ. Agril. 2. Ramrao S/o. Tanaji Jadhav Age 50 years, Occ. Agril. 3. Pandurang s/o. Bhagwanrao Puri Age 48 years, Occ. Agril. 4. Kerban S/o. Kisan Sable Age 60 years, Occ. Agril.. 5. Dagadu s/o. Rangnath Mhaske Age 64 yeras, Occ. Agril. 6. Shamrao s/o. Kisanrao Sable age 52 years, Occ. AGril. All R/o. Bhalgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra through it's Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 2. The Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Mantralaya, Mumbai. 32. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, (Supply) Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. 5. Bholebaba Mahila Grahak Sahakari Sanstha, through Baban Trimbak Jadhav Age 60 years, Occ. Agril, R/o. Bhalgaon, Tq. Ambad, District Jalna. .. Respondents --- Mr. S.S. Thombare, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent NOs. 1 to 4 Mr. A.S. Osmanpurkar, Advocate for respondent NO. 5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 11TH JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 13th February, 209, passed by the respondent No.2 thereby allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 5. 3. The petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that though the present petitioners were parties before the respondent NO.4 and respondent No.3, the respondent NO.5 has not impleaded them as party respondent before the respondent No.2. As such, the order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners who were very much interested in the proceedings before the respondent NO.2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though caveat was filed, the petitioners were not given notice in the proceedings before the respondent NO.2. 5. Perusal of the cause title of the revision filed by the respondent NO.5 also reveals that the respondent No.5 has not impleaded the present petitioners as party respondents. Thus, the impugned order suffers 4 from latent violation of the principles of natural Justice. Hence, I pass the following order :- 6. The matter is remitted back to the respondent NO.2 for hearing afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioners so also the respondent NO.5. The parties to remain present before the respondent NO.2 on 24/6/2009 and as such, the requirement of formal notices to the petitioners as well as the respondent NO.5 stands waived. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/