IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1969 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1969 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1969 OF 2009 Mr.R.D.Gondil and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune and others. ... Respondents. A.S.Desai for the petitioner. A.H.Palekar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8. Y.S.Jahagirdar, senior counsel i/b. R.V.Govilkar and S.B.Khurjekar for respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 5th February 2009. DATED: 5th February 2009. DATED: 5th February 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8. Mr.Govilkar waives service for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. Heard finally by consent of parties. 4. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 20th January, 2009 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Co-operation, Marketing, Textile and De-Addition Activities, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in Revision No.515/2008. One of the main submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that he had no notice of the hearing of the revision. He was not informed about the date and place of hearing. With the result, the petitioner had no knowledge about the hearing of the revision. Thus, the revision was heard behind the back of the petitioner. 5. The learned A.G.P. frankly admitted that the notice was issued but there is no material on record to show that service was effected. With the result, he was unable to point out service. This clearly shows that the order was passed behind the back of the petitioner as such in breach of principles of natural justice and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law. None of the respondents, who are appearing before me, could point out that the petitioner was heard before passing the impugned order. 6. In the above view of the matter, without going to the merits or demerits of the matter, considering the prejudice suffered by the petitioner because of non-grant of hearing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The revision application being Revision No.515/2008 is restored to file of the State Government with direction to hear and dispose of the same with expeditious despatch, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the State Government on 12th February, 2009 so as to get the date fixed for hearing. 8. It is needless to mention that all rival contentions are kept open. It would also be open for either of the parties to challenge the decision taken by the Society during pendency of the revision, if permissible. 9. Petition is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)