-: 1 :- wp. - 4478/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2010 Bhaveshwari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Ltd., Bijur. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. G. N. Salunke for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the State – respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 & 6. Mr. Vishal Patil for respondent no.4. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 27, 2010. P. C. : 1. Rule. By consent of learned counsel, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. G. N. Salunke, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. M. Patne, learned AGP for the State and Mr. Vishal Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 3. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by respondent no.2-Minister whereby the revision filed by respondent no.4 is allowed and the orders passed by respondent nos.5 & 6 are set aside. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposing of the present writ petition are srp -: 2 :- wp. - 4478/10 as follows : . Simultaneously, the petitioner and respondent no.4 submitted proposals to respondent no.6 for registration of their respective societies. Both the proposals were rejected by the Assistant Registrar and this order was confirmed upto the revisional authority. The matter was carried upto High Court. High Court remanded matter back to respondent no.6- Assistant Registrar. Respondent no.6, upon remand of matter, granted registration to respondent no.4 in the year 2002. Subsequently in the year 2006, after hearing respondent no.4, the Petitioner society was also granted registration certificate. This order of Assistant Registrar was confirmed by respondent no.5 in an appeal and therefore respondent no. 4 preferred revision before respondent no.2–Minister under section 154 of the MCS Act. By the order impugned in the present petition, the said revision is allowed and the petitioner's registration was set aside. 4. The grievance of Mr. Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submitted that hearing of the revision took place on 2nd March 2010, however, notice of hearing was served upon the petitioner on the same day at 4.00 p.m. The impugned order ultimately thereafter was passed on 13th May 2010. The position as mentioned above is not disputed by learned AGP and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for -: 3 :- wp. - 4478/10 respondent. I also find that the petitioner immediately on 4th March 2010 wrote a letter to respondent no.2 thereby informing him that he could not remain present for hearing on 2nd March 2010 as the notice of hearing was served upon him on the date of hearing itself, i.e., on 2nd March 2010 at 4.00 p.m.. From the above facts, it is clear that the impugned order is passed without following principles of natural justice and therefore same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (I) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to respondent no.2. (II) Respondent no.2 shall decide the matter on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides. He shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today. (III) Rule is made absolute accordingly. (R.V. MORE, J.)