1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2266 OF 2010 (Jawahar C. Jaiswal vs. Director of Marketing M.S. & 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 Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Wadodkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel contends that because of collusion between respondents, the appeal or some other proceedings are being kept pending to the prejudice of the petitioner and his application for restoration of license as Weighman under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as APMC Act) has not been decided for more than two years. He points out that cancellation of his license by APMC has been set aside in appeal by Respondent No. 2 and that order has been questioned in appeal by APMC before Respondent No.1. The learned counsel contends that in such situation, after that appeal came to be dismissed for continuous absence of APMC, the letter for its restoration was given on 16.04.2010 behind the back of 2 the petitioner and it has been entertained and granted on the same date. He also comments upon said letter in order to demonstrate that it does not show any just and sufficient ground. Shri Wadodkar, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that the appeal was dismissed in default and hence its restoration was within the discretion of Respondent No.1. After the letter was furnished giving reasons for absence, the authority felt satisfied and hence the appeal has been restored back to file. The learned AGP is also supporting the order of restoration of appeal and argues that the appeal should be permitted to be heard on merits. In view of the arguments advanced by Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel about malafides, it is apparent that the application for restoration of appeal needs to be reheard by Respondent No.1. The appeal was dismissed in default and the same could not have been restored without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to point out the prejudice being caused to him in the matter. Without observing anything more on the matter, as the observations are likely to prejudice Respondent No.1, the impugned order dated 16.04.2010 restoring the appeal is hereby quashed and set aside. The request dated 09.04.2010 made by Respondent No. 3 for its restoration is restored back to the file of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 on that application in accordance with law and thereafter shall decide that 3 application. As the matter is old and the petitioner is being prejudiced, Respondent No.1 shall attempt to decide that application as early as possible and in any case by 31st August 2010. The petitioner shall file his reply to the request of restoration with an advance copy thereof to respondent No. 3 by 5th July 2010. The parties shall appear before Respondent No.1 on 5th July 2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.