Bombay High CourtWP/3227/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ganesh Bhimrao Chavan And Others v. Deputy Commissioner (Supply) Amravati Division Amravati And Others

2016-06-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp3227.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3227 OF 2016 (GANESH BHIMRAO CHAVAN & ANR...VS..DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SUPPLY), AMRAVATI & 3 OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 08, 2016.

Heard Shri A.V.Band, advocate for the petitioners and Shri A.D.Sonak, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Considering the controversy involved in the petition and the order which is proposed to be passed, the matter is being disposed finally without issuing notice to the respondent No.4 as the order which is being passed will not cause any prejudice to the respondent No.4.

The petitioners made complaint against the respondent No.4 to the concerned authorities regarding the alleged illegalities in running of fair price shop by the respondent No.4. According to the petitioners, the TahsildarCompetent Authority, after conducting the enquiry submitted report dated 28th August, 2015 to the District Supply Officer on the basis of which the licence of the respondent No.4 was cancelled. The respondent No.4 has challenged the order passed by the District Supply Officer in revision and has also prayed for an interim order. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they had filed caveat before the revisional

2 wp3227.16 authority, however, the respondent No.4 did not implead the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) has granted interim order in favour of the respondent No.4 without hearing the petitioners and without considering the written notes of arguments filed by the petitioners. In my view, the interests of justice would be subserved by directing the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) to dispose the revision application filed by the respondent No.4 till 30th September, 2016.

The petition is disposed with above directions. The petitioners undertake to serve the copy of this order on the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner (Supply) on the next date. The learned A.G.P. shall also intimate this order to the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner (Supply). JUDGE RRaut..