:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4831 OF 2007 Shri Dattu Nivrutti Gadhave and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Ramdas Bandu Gadhave and anr. ....Respondents Mr.U.P.Warunjikar Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that their Revision Application was placed before the officer on special duty in the department of Revenue and Forest, Government of Maharashtra. That Revision Application was fixed for hearing and parties were heard. However, the outcome of the same is not communicated, inasmuch as, there is no speaking order of the OSD on record. All that is being communicated is that the OSD finds no substance in the Revision Application and therefore rejects the same. This is not an order passed by the OSD but the communication from the Under Secretary of :2: :2: :2: that department. Without entering into any larger controversy this is hardly satisfactory manner of disposal of Revision Application. One who has heard the Revision Application must pass any order and not leave it to any subordinate to communicate the outcome or what is passing in his mind. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The Revision Application is restored to the file of the Revisional Authority for being decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. All contentions on merits are kept open. Petition allowed. No order as to costs. sd/- *******