IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2024 Pratibha Digambar Waghmare VERSUS The Additional Commissioner No 1 And Others Mr. M. P. Tripathi, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 6/State Mr. N. S. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. G. R. Ingole, Advocate of Respondent No.7 CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 07th March, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by Additional Division Commissioner, Chatrapati Sambhaji Nagar in the proceedings bearing No. iz-dz- 2024@fMch@vax.k@vfiy&1@flvkj&13 Whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No. 7 herein came to be partly allowed to the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by Chief Executive Officer (for short “CEO”), Zilla Parishad, Nanded in favour of petitioner was set aside. 2. Petition is filed amongst other contentions on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. It is specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice of the said proceeding was issued to the petitioner and hence on this 933-WP-8355-2024.odt 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:6908 count itself the order cannot sustain. 3. Learned counsel for contesting respondents supported the impugned order by contending that the order is innocuous and that the direction is issued by Additional Divisional Commissioner to CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nanded is only to re-hear the proceeding. 4. Since, issue was raised with regard as to whether there was service of notice to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order, concerned proceeding is called by this Court for its perusal. Perusal of the proceeding indicates that though there is notice in the said proceedings however no acknowledgment of receipt of notice by the petitioner is found on record. Even otherwise, perusal of the rojnama and also the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner does not indicate service of notice of the said proceeding to petitioner/respondent No. 6 therein. 5. The Additional Divisional Commissioner has set aside the order in favour of the petitioner without issuance of notice to her. Hence, such order passed in utter disregard to the principles of the natural justice and contrary to the principle of audi alterm partem, cannot sustain. Hence, on this ground alone, impugned order needs to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 933-WP-8355-2024.odt 2 of 3 6. Proceedings are relegated back to the Additional Divisional Commission, Chatrapati Sambhaji Nagar for decision afresh. Parties are directed to appear before the said Authority till 17.03.2025. The Divisional Commissioner is not required to issue any fresh notice to the parties. It is open for the Divisional Commissioner to conduct the proceedings as per law, even if parties remain absent. 7. Petition is allowed above terms. Divisional Commissioner to expedite the hearing. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) bsj 933-WP-8355-2024.odt 3 of 3