(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3169 OF 2010 Kadu Natthu Dhake, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Mitra Nagar, Plot No.1, Nita Building, Opp. to Khwajamiya Dargah, Jalgaon, Taluka & District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Through Chief Executive Officer. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.I. Nandode, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 25TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner, that though the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, vide order dated 14th June 2006, has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, the respondent i.e. State of Maharashtra has passed an order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. From the record, it is clear that while passing the order dated 31st December 2009, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing. By the impugned order, the State Government has virtually withdrawn the benefit which was granted by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. In that view of the matter, such an order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On this limited ground, the petition deserves to be allowed. (3) 4. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 31st December 2009, passed by the Joint Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Government for deciding it afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of six months from today. 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3169