1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2010 (Jawali Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha vs. 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, J. JUNE 17, 2010. Heard Shri Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Wasnik, learned AGP for respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5 and Shri Khobragade, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This Court has issued notice for final disposal after specifically mentioning that revision came to be allowed without any notice to the petitioner - Cooperative society. Shri Khobragade, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 – society as also learned AGP are not in a position to show that any notice of hearing was served upon the petitioner and still he chose to remain absent. The learned AGP as also Shri Khobragade, learned counsel are relying upon the impugned order which mentions that at the time of first hearing, the petitioner – society had given a written submission. However, the date of that first hearing is not mentioned anywhere in the impugned order. The impugned order 2 reveals that revision application was considered on 15.07.2009 and at that time nobody was present on behalf of the present petitioner before Respondent No. 1. After narrating the contentions raised in written submissions by present Respondent No. 2, in its revision Respondent No. 1 has then mentioned written submissions allegedly submitted by the petitioner at the time of first hearing. However, if hearing was conducted on 15.07.2009, it is apparent that there could not be any hearing before that date. It is also not clear whether those written submissions were filed before Respondent No. 1 or before some other authority. In last para again, Respondent No. 1 has mentioned that at the time of hearing, there was nobody present for the petitioner, though sufficient time was given to them. The revision has been allowed and the order passed in favour of present petitioner by the Assistant Registrar has been set aside. In this situation, it will be appropriate to direct Respondent No.1 to rehear the matter after giving necessary opportunity to the parties in this respect. Shri Khobragade, learned counsel has pointed out that the order passed in revision has already been implemented and Respondent No. 2 – society has started functioning and using the tank in dispute. In view of this statement, the proceedings in Revision need to be expedited and position as obtaining as on today deserves to be maintained till the revision is decided by Respondent No. 2. The impugned order 3 dated 31.08.2009 is accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Revision are restored back to the file of Respondent No.1. The parties to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 21st July 2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Respondent No.1 shall attempt to dispose of the revision as early as possible and in any case by 31st October 2010. Till then the position in relation to working of Respondent No. 2 – society as on today shall continue. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.