1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4158 OF 2007 Star Masemari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Ambalwadi, Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed. Through its Chief Promoter, Shaikh Vajir Sk. Usman, Age-40 years, Occu:Fishermen, R/o-Pus, Tq-Ambajogai, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary, Milk and Animal Husbandry Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32), 2) The District Fishery Development Officer, Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed, 3) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Dairy, Beed, Tq. & Dist-Beed. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.R.T. Nagargoje Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER: NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner challenges the refusal of No Objection Certificate from the District Fisheries Development Officer dated 23rd January, 2007 Exhibit E. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.233 of 2007, dated 5th May, 2009. The counsel submits that Petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order and the Petitioner's application came to be rejected by giving reference of the circular dated 17th August, 1989. It is further 3 submitted that the Petitioner was asking for No Objection Certificate and not for Registration Certificate. 4. An affidavit in reply was filed by the Respondent No.3. It is submitted by the deponent that the Petitioner did not comply the norms of registration of society dated 17th August, 1989, therefore, Feasibility and No Objection Certificate could not be granted and was not granted. 5. In the facts of the case, the Authority concerned should disclose, in the order, the grounds of rejection of the application seeking No Objection Certificate. In the Order passed by us cited supra, we had observed that in such situation, the Authority concerned shall pass a brief, reasoned order so that application of mind of the Authority is disclosed from the Order itself. It will not be reasonable and proper to disclose the grounds by filing affidavit in reply 4 which weighed with the Authority concerned in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. With this purpose, we find that the matter requires to be remanded back to the Authority concerned, who is Respondent No.2. 6. The impugned order dated 23rd January, 2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back before the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner shall appear before Respondent No.2 on 12th April, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Respondent No.2 shall, thereafter, pass appropriate orders on the application of the Petitioner within two weeks. All issues are kept open. 7. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the Petitioner. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp4158.07