1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3413/2008 (Abdul Gani Mohd. Akbar vs. The State of Mah and others) ====================================== Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Adv. for the petitioner Shri D.B.Patel, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Shri S.G.Charde, Adv. for Respondent No.5 CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Nobody appears for Respondent No. 5 though he is served. Arguments of Advocate Chandurkar for the petitioner are two folds. He states that 9th May, 2008 was the date scheduled for hearing of revision by the Hon'ble Minister i.e. Respondent No. 1. The notice of that date was received by the petitioner at Ashta, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal, on 7th May, 2008 and petitioner, therefore, could not reach Mumbai i.e. the place of hearing by 9th May, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, had forwarded by fax an affidavit of Respondent NO.5, by which respondent no.5 declared that he had not raised any grievance before Respondent no.1 in revision. He points out that said affidavit was received by the office of Respondent No.1 on 9th May, 2008, but it has not been considered 2 by the Hon'ble Minister in the impugned order. In these circumstances, his contention is that petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity as contemplated by second proviso to Regulation No. 24 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1975, and in any case the material placed on record by petitioner has not been considered and therefore, impugned order stands vitiated. Advocate Charde for respondent no.6 contends that petitioner did not forward any application for adjournment and he forwarded only affidavit of respondent no.5, which shows that petitioner was satisfied with the said affidavit and he did not wish to add any thing further for the purpose of said revision. He contends that the revision was filed jointly by respondent no. 5 & 6 together and hence affidavit of respondent no. 5 alone did not have any effect in so far as consideration of revision by the Minister is concerned. He, therefore, argues that both the grounds raised are without substance. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also supports the line of argument and contends that if petitioner wanted to argue the matter personally, he would have definitely applied for the adjournment. After hearing the parties and after perusal of the impugned order, as also affidavit of respondent 3 no.1, I am satisfied that petitioner has not been given reasonable opportunity to argue the revision. The revision was fixed for final hearing by the Minister on 9th May, 2008 and the petitioner has received the communication of that date at remote place like Astha, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal on 7th May, 2008. The act of forwarding the affidavit of Respondent No.5 by a lay person like petitioner cannot be construed to mean that the petitioner has waived his right of personal hearing in that petition. However, the impugned order does not even mention said affidavit for whatsoever its worth. In these circumstances, non application of mind is also apparent. But, in view of the impugned order, the fair price shop of the present petitioner is already closed. In these circumstances, as the petitioner has not forwarded any application for adjournment in the matter, I am not inclined to permit him to reopen the shop, though the impugned order passed by the Minister on 9th May, 2008, is hereby quashed and set aside. The revision is restored back to the file of Respondent No.1 for taking fresh decision after giving the opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and also to the respondent nos. 5 & 6. The Office of Respondent No.1 to see that notice of date scheduled for hearing is served upon the 4 petitioner and other parties at least one week in advance. The respondent No.1 shall decide the revision as early as possible and in any case on or before 15th February, 2009. The petitioner can open his shop accordingly as per the result of said revision after 15th February, 2009. Rule accordingly. In the facts and circumstances there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit