1 wp6647-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6647 OF 2010 Rajaram Sitaram Patil .. Petitioner versus Anil Bandhu Patil & Ors .. Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the petitioner. Mr.Dushyant S. Pagare i/by Mr.Rajesh S. Datar for respondent No.4. Mr.Kiran Joshi for respondent No.7. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Karandikar appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Joshi appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 and Mr.Pagare appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. The office report shows that notices were issued on 18th October 2010 to respondent Nos.1 to 7 and they are received back duly served, save and except, to respondent Nos.4 to 7, others have not remained present to contest the claim of the petitioner. 2 Mr.Karandikar appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the order passed by the Minister of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra contended that when this order was passed, the original 2 wp6647-10.doc applicant Anil Bandhu Patil, Rakhi Bandhu Patil @ Smt.Rakhi Nilesh Vaiti and Smt Sunanda Mahesh Bhagat were absent. It is recorded in the order itself that the said parties appeared before the Minister subsequently and stated that they did not wish to be heard in person, but, their written arguments will be filed. These written arguments were filed on 18th August 2009. The hearing was scheduled on 11th August 2009. After this hearing concluded, the written arguments of the parties were taken on record, but, copies of the same were not placed for perusal of either present petitioner or respondent Nos.1 to 7, each of whom is party opponent to the proceedings before the Minister. 3 Mr.Karandikar, therefore, invited my attention to the memo of this writ petition and particularly para 6 of the same. He invites my attention to the grounds and particularly, ground No.(b). The contesting respondent have not appeared though served. The notice that was issued by this Court was on the basis that the matter would be heard finally as a short point is involved. Since, none appears to contest the claim and particularly the statements made in the petition, the Court has no choice, but, to proceed on the basis that they remain uncontroverted. For these reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The application which has been filed by Anil Patil, Rakhi Bandhu Patil @ Smt.Rakhi Vaiti and Smt.Sunanda Bhagat who are the respondent 3 wp6647-10.doc Nos.1 to 3 to the present writ petition, is restored to the file of the State Government for being decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to clarify that the matter will be heard and decided after giving due notice to all the parties. Equally, it is needless to clarify that the matter will be decided afresh. The State Government or the appropriate authority shall not in any manner be influenced by any of the observations, findings and conclusions in the impugned order which is set aside. The writ petition succeeds in these terms. There will be no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)