LATUR GORAKSHAN TRUST Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Revision was fixed for hearing before the Revisional Authority on 20.5.2009. He invited my attention to the document at page 65 of the compilation of writ petition and submitted that, office of the Revisional Authority had sent a notice of hearing of the matter on 18.5.2009 by fax. The same was received at about 6.30 p.m. on that day. Therefore, a letter was written by one of the office bearer of the petitioner Trust, requesting to the Revisional Authority i.e. Minister, stating therein that, the notice of hearing is received by the petitioner on 18.5.2009, by fax. It is further stated in the said communication that, Shri Kantaprasad Vishnudasji Rathi, who is Secretary of the petitioner Trust, is not available in the town and eight days prior to receiving such notice, he has proceeded to Badrinath for religious trip. By the said letter, a prayer was made to the Revisional Authority that, at least ten days in advance, the date of hearing of the said revision would be communicated to the petitioner, so that, the petitioner would conveniently attend the said proceeding. It is submitted that, inspite of the said communication to the Revisional Authority, the Revisional Authority proceeded to hear the revision on 20.5.2009 and had closed the matter for orders. The learned counsel invited my attention to the impugned judgment and submitted that, the opening paragraph of the said judgment would clearly demonstrate that, the hearing of the revision initially was on 24.3.2009 and the revision was finally heard on 20.5.2009 and the matter was closed for orders. The learned senior counsel further invited my attention to the fact that, the impugned judgment itself mentions that, the petitioner herein has not filed any written note of arguments. It is submitted that, the subsequent communications dated 27.5.2009 and 22.6.2009, addressed by the Secretary of the petitioner Trust cannot be treated as written notes of argument. The petitioner was placed in such a position that, he has no option but to write the said letters to the Revisional Authority. According to learned senior counsel, at the first instance, those communications cannot be treated as written submissions and secondly, in the entire body of the judgment, there is no reference to such communications at Exh. "N" at pages 67 and 69 of the compilation of the writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that, the impugned judgment and order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, instead of entering into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the Revisional Authority to hear the revision afresh, so that, the petitioner will get an opportunity to put forth its case.