(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6110 OF 2009 Maruti s/o. Nagnath Parbate, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Khanapur, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Minister, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Minister, Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 3. Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Nanded. (2) 5. Raghunath s/o. Laxman Korewar, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Khanapur, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. .......................... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, Advocate, for respondent no.5. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th August 2009, passed by the respondent no.2, in File No. VAM-1609/FN-402-09/CS-21, thereby reversing the order dated 2nd March 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 in File No. (3) VAM-1609/FN/137-09/CS-21. 3. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th August 2009, passed in the review petition filed at the instance of the respondent no.5, has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the notice of hearing was not given to the petitioner. 4. Though reply is filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4, as well as, respondent no.5, stating that inspite of issuance of notice to the petitioner, the petitioner neither remained present personally nor through his Counsel and, as such, the impugned order was rightly passed, I find that from the record, it cannot be clearly established that the notice was, in fact, duly served upon the petitioner. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 28th August 2009, passed by the respondent no.2, in File No. VAM-1609/FN-402-09/CS-21, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for hearing and decision afresh, on the Review Petition filed by respondent no.5, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as, respondent no.5. The respondent no.2 shall decide the matter within a period of three months from today. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (4) 7. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to act upon. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6110