1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3697 OF 2010. Gram Panchayat, Mardi and others. -: VERSUS :- The State of Maharashtra and others. 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. DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard Shri J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. By the impugned order dated 07.04.2010, respondent no.2 has remanded the matter back to respondent no.3 Collector, for fresh consideration. Contention of Shri Kasat, learned counsel for petitioner is Rules require respondent no.2 to hear the petitioners before passing such order, and petitioners have not been heard. On merits learned Counsel states that the representative of Block Development Officer namely Extension Officer attended the Gram Sabha in question, 2 and as per the provisions of Rule 3[2] of the Bombay Prohibition (closure of licence on Resolution by Gram Sabha or representation by Voters in the Ward of Municipal Council/ Corporation) Order, 2008 the representative of licencee was present and video shooting has been done. Procedure as contemplated in Sub-Rules [1] and [2] has been followed, hence, mere fact that representative of Block Development Officer was present is not sufficient to remand the matter. Shri Bhuibar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 are supporting the impugned order. According to learned A.G.P. the Rules specifically requires Block Development Officer to remain present and respondent no.2 has rightly recognized that requirement. Shri Kasat, learned Counsel has tried to urge that requirement of presence of Block Development Officer is only directory and is not fatal. He has urged that if the licencee avoids to remain present or then his representative do not attend the meeting, the provision of Rule 3 cannot be held to be defeated. The contention and logic is not applicable in the present facts. The 3 consequences flowing from Gram Sabha are serious and therefore, the Rules require officer like Block Development Officer to remain present in the meeting. The State Government has justified this requirement and respondent no.2 has in the impugned order also accepted it. There cannot be anything wrong with the said representation. It is no doubt true that, the petitioner should have been heard before passing of the order by respondent no.2, but mere denial of hearing has not resulted into causing any prejudice. Petition is thus dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.