1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.100 OF 2008 Shantisagar Police Coop.Housing Society ltd. through its Chairman Dr.Sitaram Kapase .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra through Deptt. of Cooperation, .. Respondent Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Yash Sakhare i/b. YKS Legal for petitioner Ms.Cardozo, A.G.P. for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd January 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and Ms.Cardozo, A.G.P. for State. 2. The petition is taken up for disposal with consent of parties at this stage itself. Petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed by 2 the Revisional Authority on the Revision Application which was preferred by them to challenge the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. 3. It is their grievance that the revision application preferred before the Minister for Cooperation, Govt. of Maharashtra has been disposed of and decided in their absence. That order was passed on 31st December 2007. 4. Mr.Sakhare makes a very serious grievance and submits that this revision application was pending before the Minister. The Minister was aware of the fact that the petitioners had applied for being heard personally before any order is passed in the Revision Application. The petitioners, therefore, should have been given prior notice of the date and time of hearing so that either they remain present in person or through the lawyer. It is pointed out before me 3 that the revision application was pending and on 22nd June 2007, a notice was first addressed to the petitioners informing them that the Minister would hear this revision application on 3rd July 2007 at 10.30 a.m. The petitioners indeed remained present and none disputes that the matter thereafter did not proceed. It appears that on 10th December 2007 the revision application was placed before the Minister on which date the revision application was decided. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that they were all through out expecting that just as earlier occasion, a notice of the date and time of hearing would be intimated to them in advance. Mr.Sakhare submits that when the hearing was held allegedly on 10th December 2007, the record would indicate that none on behalf of the petitioners was present or made any submissions. A specific ground in this behalf is taken in the petition. Further, in the main petition also these aspects 4 are highlighted. In such circumstances, it was contended that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 6. The matter was adjourned to enable Ms.Cardozo to take instructions as to whether any prior notice or intimation of the date of hearing being on 10th December 2007 was issued, served and received by the petitioners or their representative. The matter was placed today at 3.00 p.m. 7. In all fairness Ms.Cardozo states that the record does not indicate that any prior notice was given to the petitioner or that there is any receipt evidencing this fact. In such circumstances, she could not dispute that the order was passed in the absence of the petitioner and without any hearing to them being afforded on 10th December 2007. 5 8. Yet, she submits that the order assigns cogent reasons for upholding the order and directions of reaudit. 9. In my view, it is not necessary to enter into the controversy insofar as the merits are concerned. Once it is undisputed that the revision application preferred by the petitioner has been heard in their absence nor is their any intimation to their Advocate of the date and time of the hearing, then on this short ground alone, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Revision application preferred by the petitioner is restored to the file of State Government for being dealt with on merits and in accordance with the law. 10. Parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 5th February 2008 at 3.00 p.m. and the revisional authority to endeavour 6 and dispose of the revision application within six weeks from the date of appearance of petitioner. Ad-interim order granted by this Court on 9th January 2008 would continue till the hearing and final disposal of the revision application. Revisional authority to decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations and findings so also conclusions in the impugned order, which, needless to state, is quashed and order. 11. In the event, the order passed by the Revisional Authority and communicated to the petitioners is adverse to them, the same shall not be implemented or acted upon for a period of one week from the date of receipt of the same. Petition disposed of accordingly. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)