- 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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.813 OF 2008 PETITION NO.813 OF 2008 PETITION NO.813 OF 2008 Ravindra Hastimal Bhandari ...Petitioner vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Abhay Patki a/w Mr.Sharad Bhosale for the petitioner Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.S.D.Moghe with Mr.Mukesh Chheda for Respondent No.5 CORAM CORAM CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 9,2008 : APRIL 9,2008 : APRIL 9,2008 JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. The learned G.P. waives service for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned counsel for the 5th Respondent waives service. 2. Considering the limited controversy involved in this petition, the same is immediately taken up for final disposal. 3. The challenge by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is to the order dated 1st March 2008 passed by the third Respondent in this petition. 4. The impugned order has been passed in implementation of the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.825 of 2007 dated 19th February 2007. The order of the Apex court reads thus : - 2 - ". Leave granted. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. . By an order dated 17th December 1999 issued by the Chief Officer (Dy.C.O.2), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board the allotment of open space made in favour of the appellant has been revoked. Against the said order the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by special leave. . Undisputedly, the order of revocation aforesaid has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as such the same is fit to be set aside on this ground alone. Accordingly, the aforesaid order dated 17th December 1999 is hereby quashed. We may, however, make it clear that it would be open to the concerned Authority to take steps afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties." . The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 5. There are various challenges in this petition to the impugned order. Various grounds have been raised in this - 3 - petition including the contention that there is a breach of principles of natural justice. 6. On bare reading of the impugned order it is very clear that adjudication has been made in most unsatisfactory manner. There are hardly any reasons recorded for revoking allotment allegedly made in favour of the Petitioner. The order impugned is not consistent with the order of the Apex Court. The order has been passed in a cryptic manner. The order primafacie, shows that the written submissions filed by the petitioner has not been considered on merits. In the circumstances, instead of going into the merits of the controversy, it will be appropriate if the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the concerned Authority to pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.5 suggested that to avoid any further delay, the said parties may be permitted to file the written submissions. 7. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order/communication dated 1st March 2008 is quashed and set aside. ii) All parties are directed to appear before the Chief Officer of the third Respondent on 22nd April 2008 at - 4 - 12.00 noon. The petitioner will be free to file additional written submissions in addition to the submissions which are already filed. It will be open for the fifth Respondent to file written submissions. It is made clear that no separate notice shall be served to the Petitioner and the fifth Respondent. On that day, the said Officer may hear the parties or may fix a further date for hearing the oral arguments. iii) The Chief Officer of the third Respondent will pass an appropriate order in terms of aforesaid order of the Apex Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st May 2008. iv) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. v) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE