ash 1 wp-5711.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5711 OF 2011 Paschim Maharashtra Pradeshik Sahakari Mandal, Maryadit, Pune, and Another. .. Petitioners VS Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Pune, and Others. .. Respondents -- Shri T.S. Ingale for the Petitioners. Shri P.D. Dalvi for Respondent No.1. Shri S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent and the learned AGP for 2nd to 4th Respondents. 2. One of the grievances made by the Petitioners is that the Petitioners were not served with the notice of the date fixed for hearing of the Revision Application preferred by the first Respondent. In the cause title of the impugned judgment and order, the name of the first Petitioner appears as the intervenor. ash 2 wp-5711.11 3. Perusal of the record shows that the first Petitioner had filed a caveat in the Revision Application filed by the first Respondent. The learned AGP on perusal of the record pointed out that though the notice of the date fixed for hearing of the Revision Application was issued to the first Petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that before the date of hearing, the notice was served to the first Petitioner. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the second Petitioner is a necessary party to the Revision Application. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent. 5. As there is nothing on record to show that the first Petitioner was served with the notice of the date fixed, the impugned order will have to be set aside only on that ground. As far as the second Petitioner is concerned, the record shows that there is no caveat filed by the second Petitioner. Therefore, the second Petitioner will have to make appropriate application before the Revisional Authority. 6. Hence, I pass the following order:- (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2007 is quashed and set aside only on the ground ash 3 wp-5711.11 that the notice of the date fixed for hearing of the Revision Application was not served to the first Petitioner; (b) The Revision Application No.47 of 2010 is restored to the file of the State Government; (c) The first Petitioner and the first Respondent are directed to appear before the Revisional Authority ( third Respondent ) on 7th September, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. only for the purposes of fixing a date of the hearing; (d) It is made clear that no fresh notice of the date fixed of the Revision Application shall be given; (e) It will be open for the second Petitioner to make an appropriate application to the Revisional Authority; (f) The Revision Application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from 7th September, 2011. In the event, the third Respondent is not available for ash 4 wp-5711.11 hearing of the Revision Application for any reason, then the Revision Application shall be placed before the Secretary of the concerned Department who is empowered to hear the Revision Application; (g) All contentions of the parties on merits of the Revision Application are kept open; (h) The Petition is disposed of on above terms with no orders as to costs; (i) The parties concern to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. ( A.S. OKA, J )