( 1 ) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W.P.NO.4804/2008 Sanjay Purnaji Tekale -vs- The State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKAR, J. DATE : 12/12/2008 Heard Advocate Puri for petitioner, Advocate Naik for respondents No.3 to 6 and learned A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2. The authorization of fair price shop and retail kerosene outlet given to present petitioner was cancelled by District Supply Officer vide his order dated 12/08/2008 by separate orders. Both these orders were questioned before the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies), Amravati Division Amravati by present petitioner and again by separate order dated 01/10/2008 the authority has recorded a finding of partial guilt and, therefore, has given present petitioner an opportunity to improve by ( 2 ) imposing a punishment of forfeiture of his deposit. This order has been questioned by present respondents No.3 to 6 by filing revision before respondent No.1 State Government. State Government on 23rd October, 2008 granted stay to these orders for the period of three months and communicated on 10th December, 2008 and the next date of hearing. It is in this background that petitioner approached this Court. The basic grievance of petitioner is that the impugned orders of State could not have been passed behind the back of petitioner and without hearing him. Reliance is being placed upon Clause 24 of The Maharashtra Scheduled Community Regulation and Distribution Order, 1975. Advocate Naik for respondents No.3 to 6 on the other hand states that the mention of Clause 24 is incorrect and it has to be Clause 16. Learned A.G.P. states that because of the unfortunate event, the matter could not be heard on 10th of December, 2008 and on merits immediately. In these circumstances, after hearing parties, I am satisfied that the hearing of ( 3 ) revision preferred by respondents No.3 to 6 pending before respondent No.1 needs to be decided expeditiously. Accordingly, respondent No.1 to make efforts to dispose of the revision as early as possible and in any case by 22nd January, 2009 with these directions writ petition disposed of. Rule accordingly. JUDGE gsk