-: 1 :- wp-8263/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8263 OF 2011 M/s. Varsha Agency, Thane. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Vineet B. Naik with Mr. J. G. Reddy for the petitioner. Mr. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for R-1 to 4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 11, 2011. P. C. : 1. At the outset, Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete name of respondent no.5. Permission is granted to the petitioner to delete name of respondent no.5 at his own risk. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State. 3. By the order dated 28/2/2011, District Supply Officer - respondent no.3 suspended the petitioner’s wholesale kerosene licence. This order is confirmed by respondent no.2 on 14/9/2011 in revision. 4. During the pendency of his revision before respondent srp -: 2 :- wp-8263/11 no.2, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2763 of 2011 making grievance that neither his revision nor stay application preferred by him was being decided by respondent no.2–Minister. This Court after hearing petitioner and learned AGP for the State recorded a prima facie finding that respondent no.3 passed order on 28/2/2011 without following principles of natural justice. Respondent no. 2 was accordingly directed to dispose of petitioner's revision expeditiously within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 5. During the pendency of revision, order of respondent no. 3 was stayed. Respondent no.3 thereafter by passing order dated 2/6/2011, revoked suspension of petitioner’s licence and said licence was restored. Respondent no.2–Minister, however, on 14/9/2011 dismissed the petitioner’s revision. 6. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that respondent no.2 has not considered petitioner’s grievance that he has not been given an opportunity of hearing by respondent no.3 while passing the order suspending his wholesale kerosene licence. I find substance in the submission -: 3 :- wp-8263/11 of Mr. Naik in this regard. The specific averment is made by the petitioner that show cause notice was given by respondent no.3 to the petitioner on 24/2/2011 and petitioner was asked to attend office of respondent no.3 on 28/2/2011 to show cause as to why petitioner’s licence should not be suspended. When petitioner’s representative attended the office of respondent no.3 on 28/2/2011, he found that respondent no.3 was not in his office and the petitioner was asked by the concerned person in the office of respondent no.3 to come on the next date. The petitioner’s representative went to the office of respondent no.3 on 1/3/2011. At that time, he was told that order is already passed on 28/2/2011. These averments are not denied by the respondents by filing reply. These averments, therefore, are deemed to have been accepted by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that respondent no.3 has suspended the petitioner’s kerosene licence without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. On this ground alone, respondent no.3’s order as confirmed by respondent no.2 is required to be quashed and set aside and matter is required to be remanded to respondent no.3 to take appropriate decision after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of by passing following order. -: 4 :- wp-8263/11 -: O R D E R :- (i) Order passed by respondent no.3 on 28/2/2011 and order passed in revision by respondent no.2 on 14/9/2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) Matter is remanded to District Supply Officer – respondent no.3 for afresh decision on merits. (iii) Respondent no.3 shall take appropriate decision independently on its own merits only after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iv) Respondent no.3 shall complete the exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (RANJIT MORE, J.)