1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6876 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLN. NO. 2088 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLN. NO. 2975 of 2009. M/s. Harshavardhan Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.A.Thorat for the petitioners. Mr. V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. G.S.Godble, Advocate, for respndent No.5. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 15th December, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners had approached this Court impugning the order of the Hon’ble Minister dismissing the revision application. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that no hearing was given to them before the matter was heard. They also raised an objection that the revision as filed was not maintainable. 2 3. On behalf of the State, a reply was filed by Shri Ramakant Asmar, Joint Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department. A perusal of the reply would show that on the date when the matter was there for hearing before the Minister concerned, the Minister directed all the parties including the petitioners to collect the relevant papers and submit a written say within 7 days and after expiry of that period the matter will be decided. 4. The question is whether this amounts to a hearing given to the parties. In our opinion, a hearing without the parties having records is no hearing at all. We are clearly of the opinion that there was no effective hearing of the appeal or revision before the Hon’ble minister and consequently the impugned order dated 22.7.2009 is set aside. The matter is restored back to file of the Hon’be Minister to hear all parties before him and pass appropriate orders according to law including the objection raised by the petitioners that he has no jurisdiction. 5. The Interveners herein, if they are entitled, may apply before the Hon’ble Minister for intervention in which event their applications be heard and considered according t law. 3 6. In the case of Writ Petition No.7487 of 2009, the learned Counsel points out that he has preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner and that appeal is pending. Insofar as this petition is concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to apply for either intervention or be joined as party in the proceedings to which the respondent No.5 will give his no objection. It will be open to the petitioners to raise all objections according to law. 7. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision application, on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Counsel makes a statement that presently no development is going on and they will not carry any development and further they have also agreed not to alienate the land. The statement made on behalf of the petitioners is accepted. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The revisional authority is directed to hear the parties including the petitioners and to make available copies of the revision memo to the petitioners herein. 8. All parties to appear before the Hon’ble Minister on 12.1.2010 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter the Hon’ble Minister to fix the date of hearing. The entire exercise to be completed within four months thereafter. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)