1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3891 OF 2009 ( Nandlal M. Rathod -: versus :- Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2009. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.A. Kadu, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri M. Rai, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Kadu, learned counsel for petitioner states that the Hon’ble Minister has set aside the concurrent orders by looking into certain documents which did not form part of original records. He has invited attention to the alleged communication dated 06.09.2008 sent by the Tahsildar to substitute name of one Manik Gema Pawar in place of deceased Teksing Jairam as beneficiary of Antodaya Scheme. He further points out that in the said revision the present respondent no.4 did not join the petitioner as party. Learned A.G.P. has contended that petitioner has no locus to maintain the present petition. Petitioner is the original complainant, on the basis of which action was taken against the shop of respondent no.4. Not only this, he also filed a revision 2 in the matter and that revision was allowed by respondent no.2 on 25.08.2008 and matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. It is therefore, apparent that petitioner who is beneficiary of fair price shop in question has enough locus in the matter. After perusal of the impugned orders, it has become clear that petitioner was not party before the Hon’ble Minister or before respondent no.2. Shri Rai, learned counsel states that what ever documents are produced by respondent no.4, shall be supplied to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the order dt. 23.06.2009 passed by respondent no.1 is set aside. Respondent no.4 is permitted to place additional documents before respondent no.2 for reconsideration with copy thereof to present petitioner. Respondent no.2 shall hear respondent no.4 who is revision applicant and also the petitioner and take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with the law, as early as possible and in any case by 15.01.2010. The order dated 07.03.2009 passed by respondent no.2 shall not come in its way while considering such document and challenge. Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.