M/S Maya Rice Mills, Through Its Proprietor Namely Shri Maheshkumar S/O Jagdishprasad Agrawal v. The Collector, Gondia

Judgment W.P.No.2236.2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2236 OF 2020 M/s Maya Rice Mills, Khamari, Tah. and Dist. Gondia, through its Proprietor Shri Maheshkumar S/o Jagdishprasad Agrawal, Aged about 51 years, Occu. - Business, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Gondia.

.... PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The Collector, Gondia.

2) The District Supply Officer, Gondia.

3) The Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Mumbai through its District Marketing Officer, Gondia having office No. 43, 4th Floor, New Administrative Building, Jaistambha Chowk, Gondia.

.... RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________________ Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, counsel for petitioner.

Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri D. M. Gabhane, Counsel for respondent No.3. ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 04 th December, 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) 1.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment W.P.No.2236.2020.odt 2.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3.

In this case, no doubt, the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which opportunity has been considered to be a part and parcel of principles of natural justice by this Court in its judgment delivered in the case of Sonu Electricals Vs. Amravati Muncipal Corporation, 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 543, by taking support from the case of Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1989, SC 620. This being the position, we are of the view that the impugned order passed without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

The petition is allowed.

5.

The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. 6.

However, as the period of black list mentioned in the impugned order is already over, we do not think it necessary to remand the matter for its fresh consideration to the respondent No.1. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No cost. (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.) Kirtak