IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3471 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 3471 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 3471 OF 2007 New Education Society. ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents K.S.Bapat i/b. Avinash Fatangale for petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3. A.M.Joshi for respondent Nos.4 and 5. K.K.Malpathak for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. BHATKAR, JJ. BHATKAR, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 13th February 2009 : 13th February 2009 : 13th February 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned A.G.P. waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 along with learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. Petitioner is permitted to delete respondent No.8 from array of parties. Amendment is to be carried out forthwith. 3. Perused petition. Rule. Returnable forthwith. - 2 - 4. This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22nd June, 2005 passed by Shri.T.N.Supe, Education Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad. Since the order is self-explanatory, it is not necessary to sketch the contents of the order at this stage, in view of the fact that the impugned order is being quashed on the solitary ground being in breach of principles of natural justice. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was heard by Mr.Jadhav, the then Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. Whereas, the impugned order has been passed by Mr.T.N.Supe, who had to opportunity to hear the petitioner. It is, thus, clear that the person who heard petitioner has not passed the order and the person who has passed the order had no opportunity to hear him. It is not open for the person to pass an order, who had no opportunity of hearing the parties to the impugned order in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.Nageswara Rao v. G.Nageswara Rao v. G.Nageswara Rao v. A.P.S.R.T.Corpn. A.P.S.R.T.Corpn. A.P.S.R.T.Corpn., AIR 1959 SC 308. 6. The impugned order, in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be said to be in accordance with law, since it is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is ab initio void. It, - 3 - therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside, without examining the merits and/or demerits thereof. 7. In the above view of the matter, impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Education Officer for hearing afresh and disposal by a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice. 8. Needless to mention that the Education Officer, who shall hear the parties, shall alone decide the matter by passing reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of hearing. All rival contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the Education Officer on 17th February, 2009 to enable the Education Officer to fix the date of hearing. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (MRIDULA (MRIDULA (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) BHATKAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)