1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PEITTION NO.2676 OF 2009 1. Babu s/o Hanmantrao Khandade Age 30 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Gangapur, Taluka and Dist.Latur 2. Santosh s/o Parsuram Jagtap, Age 31 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Chikurda, Taluka and Dist.Latur .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Commissioner (Sugar), Maharashtra State, Pune 3. The Joint Director (Sugar), Nanded 4. Amit s/o Vilasrao Deshmukh, Age 33 years, Occu.Business, R/o Babulgaon, Tq. and Dist.Latur 5. Dhiraj s/o Vilasrao Deshmukh, Age 30 years, Occu.Business, R/o As above 6. Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vaishalinagar, Nivali, Taluka and Dist.Latur through its Managing Director .. RESPONDENTS Shri V.D. Salunke,Advocate holding for Shri N.D.Kendre, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondents 4 to 6 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 23rd September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The present petitioners had filed objection/complaint in respect of incurring of the disqualification by the fourth respondent. The aforesaid objection/complaint was enquired into and ultimately decided by order dated 11/12th February 2008 by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Nanded. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order by which their objection/complaint came to be rejected, filed a writ petition in this Court. The aforesaid writ petition ultimately came to be withdrawn by the present petitioners with liberty to avail the alternate remedy of filing a revision before the Minister. The petitioners accordingly filed a revision before the Minister. The memorandum of the revision has been annexed to the petition as Exhibit P-6. In the said revision, apart from the relief of disqualification which was sought against the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent also came to be joined as respondent to the revision. The Minister instead of deciding the aforesaid revision, 3 transferred it to the Commissioner of Sugar who in turn transferred it for decision to the Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Nanded. The authority to whom the revision had ultimately been transferred by cryptic order dated 12th January 2009, informed the petitioners that since their application had been rejected by the order dated 11/12th February 2008, the revision also was dismissed. It may incidentally be stated that the revision ultimately came to be decided by the same authority against whose order the revision had been filed. 3. Shri V.D.Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us twin grounds, (i) that the aforesaid revision could not have been transferred from one authority to the other authority and the petitioners ought to have been heard before the revisional authority dismissed it and (ii) that the petitioners had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Minister and assuming that the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) was also conferred with the revisional jurisdiction, the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) could not have decided the said revision as the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) was the authority against whose order the revision had been filed. The learned Government Pleader as well as Shri V.D.Hon, learned Counsel for the respondents attempted to point out to us that on merits the petitioners have no case. It was also urged that in the original complaint no relief was sought 4 against the fifth respondent and consequently, fifth respondent could not have been made to face rigor of the revision. It was also urged before us that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to either file a complaint or revision. 4. According to us, we need not dilate on the merits of the matter in the light of the order which we propose to pass. Undisputedly, the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) could not have exercised the revisional jurisdiction, particularly as the order against which the revision had been filed was the same order passed by the same authority. An authority which had passed the order cannot sit as a revisional Court or an authority. In the light of that, therefore, on this sole premise the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The revisional jurisdiction of the Minister had been invoked and according to us, rightly so as the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction. According to us, the Minister ought not to have transferred the said revision ultimately to the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) and instead ought to have heard the revision himself. In the light of that according to us, this petition deserves to be allowed. We refrain from expressing any opinion or deal with the contentions raised in respect of merits of the matter as any observation made by us touching the merits of the matter is likely to prejudice the pending revision. 5 5. We, accordingly, allow this petition, quash and set aside the order of the Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Nanded and direct that the revision be transmitted/placed before the concerned Minister before whom the revision had been filed. The concerned Minister shall exercise revisional jurisdiction and after hearing the parties to the revision, decide the said revision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31st January 2010. Since we have not dealt with the matter on merits, all contentions which are raised before us in the pleadings of the parties would be available to be raised in the revision, if entitled to be raised in law. 6. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Minister for decision, in accordance with law, within the time frame specified above. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2676.2009wp) 6