1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAO NO. 609/2009 AND MCA (Rest.) ST. NO. 8925/2009 WITH CAO NO. 915 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1815 OF 1992 (Smt. Chandrabhaga wd/o Dnyandev Khirade & Ors. Government of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. OCTOBER 07, 2009. Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Sudame, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The contention of present applicants is that Writ Petition No. 1815 of 1992 filed by him challenging the adverse order of Government was dismissed in default and he, therefore, moved MCA No. 494 of 2005 for its restoration. That MCA was erroneously withdrawn by his counsel on account of communication gap. This fact came to his knowledge after the authorities issued him notice to close down the running fair price shop and hence present proceedings are filed. CA No. 915 of 2009 is for amending the prayers in CA No. 609 of 2009. The applicants seek restoration of MCA No. 494 of 2005 back to file so that restoration of Writ Petition No. 1815 of 1992 can be 2 considered. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for respondent for Respondent No.4 has pointed out that during the pendency of writ petition, shop of Respondent No.4 has continued and if writ petition is restored, the same may be required to be closed down. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicants points out that during the pendency of petition, because of interim orders granted, both the shops were going on. The Thakre, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 is seeking time to verify this position. As we find that Writ Petition No. 1815 of 1992 was dismissed in default and thereafter MCA No. 494 of 2005 was moved for restoration, the intention of the applicants to prosecute the matter always existed. However, it appears that on account of some misunderstanding, that MCA came to be withdrawn. Therefore, without prejudice at this stage to the shop of Respondent No.4 which is going on, we recall the orders dated 21.6.2005 and restore MCA No. 494 of 2005 back to file. As hearing of MCA again will be a duplication of work, we grant the said MCA and restore Writ Petition No. 1815 of 1992 for final hearing. Shri Thakare, learned AGP and Shri Sudame, learned counsel, waive notice for the respective parties upon restoration. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the applicants 3 point out that the dispute has arisen because of increase in number of units in the village. According to Shri Mirza, the petitioner was entitled to run the shop and there was no need to transfer the cards from his shop to the shop of Respondent No.4. Shri Sudame, learned counsel states that additional shop was allotted to Respondent No.4 in accordance with law after considering the need and said shop has continued thereafter for all these years. The learned AGP states that as the matter is restored today, he will like to verify the position in this respect. In the circumstances, as it is the contention of Respondent No.4 that number of card holders / units have increased further thereafter, Respondents No. 1 to 3 to place on record relevant material so as to point out the exact number of shops needed in the said village. We list the matter accordingly for final hearing in the week commencing from 9th November 2009 and the learned AGP shall file appropriate affidavit in this respect with an advance copy to the petitioners/ applicants and Respondent No.4. Till then, status quo in relation to both the shops be maintained. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.