mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7084 OF 2008 GRAM PANCHAYAT KUMBHARASHI & ANR... PETITIONERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Vikas Kolekar for the petitioners Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP Mrs. Veena Thadani for R-3 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 2/9/2009 P.C. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner i.e. Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi and one other have challenged the order dated 26/4/08 passed by the 2nd respondent i.e. the Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 3. We find that the impugned order merely reproduces the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent has not assigned any reasons as to why he has accepted the arguments of learned counsel for the 5th respondent. It was necessary for the 2nd respondent to give reasons as reasons indicate application of mind. Reasons also help to find out whether there is transparency. We have also noticed that no representative of Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi was heard. It was necessary to hear representative of Gram Panchayat Kumbharashi because the issue involved concerns the residents particularly women of village Kumbharashi. 4. In the circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order dated 26/4/08. We direct the Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra to give a hearing to the representative of the petitioners and to the 5th respondent and pass a fresh order giving reasons. 5. We again make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the case. The Minister of State Excise, State of Maharashtra is free to pass such order as he deems fit, independently and in accordance with law. The entire exercise may be conducted by the Minister within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by him. The parties may go to the office of the Minister and get a date fixed for hearing. We expect the parties not to seek unnecessary adjournments and ensure that the matter is decided within the time frame laid down by us. 6. Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)