1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2836 OF 2010 (Shri Dadaji A. Lohakare vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 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. SEPTEMBER 07, 2010. Heard finally Shri Malke, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for the respondents. This Court has issued noticed on 25th June 2010 for final disposal. Shri Malke, learned counsel contends that the petitioner was served with show cause notice on 10.08.2009, on said date he has filed his reply and the impugned order has been passed thereafter by Respondent No. 2 – District Supply Officer (DSO) on 18.08.2009. According to him, the petitioner never accepted any of the alleged mal-practices. Ignoring that position and taking into account some document/ report submitted by the Tahsildar on 13.08.2009, the impugned order has been passed by DSO. He further states that when this grievance was made before Respondent No. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously found that the petitioner has accepted the mal-practices. 2 Shri Kankale, learned AGP states that reply given by the petitioner to show cause notice has been perused and impugned order came to be passed. A statement of the petitioner was recorded and in that statement, the petitioner accepted alleged mal-practices. Respondent No. 3 has looked into that statement and rejected the appeal of the petitioner. According to learned AGP, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The record shows that the petitioner did not accept any misconduct in reply to show cause notice. Show cause notice and reply is dated 10.08.2009. The order of DSO does not mention that after 10.08.2009, the matter was heard again. The order shows that on 13.08.2009, a report from the Tahsildar, Chandrapur, was received against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the petitioner did not get appropriate opportunity. The alleged admission noted by Respondent No. 3 in his order dated 12.01.2010 is not appearing in the order of DSO. In this situation, I find that the interest of justice warrants an opportunity to the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 – DSO. For said purpose, the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by Respondent No. 2 – the District Supply Officer, Chandrapur and also the appellate order dated 12.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 – The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nagpur Division, Nagpur are set 3 aside. The matter is restored back to the file of Respondent No. 2 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. As the shop of petitioner is already closed, Respondent No. 2 shall take that decision as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2010. The petitioner shall appear before Respondent No. 2 on 27th September 2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.