JUDGMENT : Judgment (Part - I) : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gangal, special counsel appearing along with learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Warunjikar with Mr. Pol for respondent No.4. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 24th November, 2006 passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai, the respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Controller of Rationing, the respondent No.2 dated 17th December, 2004 was dismissed. 3. The Controller of Rationing invited applications for allotment of "Ration shop" for the area Pimpri Pada, Malad (East) Mumbai. 4. Applications, 22 in number were received by respondent No.2 including that of the petitioner and respondent No.4. 5. The respondent No.2 vide its order dated 22nd November, 2003, allotted "Ration shop" to respondent No.4. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed revision application before the State Government, the respondent No.3 herein. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the respondent No.3 preferred Writ Petition No.5891/2004 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was quashes and set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent No.2 for consideration afresh. 8. The respondent No.2 after brief enquiry vide his order dated 17th December, 2004 maintained allotment of ration shop in favour of respondent No.4. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order again revision application was filed by the present petitioner before the respondent No.3. The hearing on merits was completed on 19th August, 2005. However, the order was passed on 24th November, 2006, practically, after lapse of 14 months whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. With the result, allotment of ration shop in favour of respondent No.4 was confirmed. The petitioner has stated that the copy of the said order was supplied to her on 5th April, 2007 i.e. after a period of 5 months, that too, after repeated approaches made to the office of the respondent No.3. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various amongst other grounds raised in the petition. 11. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various amongst other grounds raised in the petition. 11. The petitioner has placed on record two orders of the revisional authority, the respondent No.3, one draft order allowing revision and another signed order rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner. 12. Having seen the aforesaid shocking material brought on record, this Court naturally felt a necessity to investigate the same. Consequently, notice was issued to the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra vide order dated 13th August, 2008 directing him to make enquiry in the matter. Pursuant to this direction, the Hon’ble Minister- the respondent No.3; the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra; Shri S.Y.Kursange, Deputy Secretary of the department and Shri A.A.Godbole, Section Officer of the same department have filed their respective affidavits. All these affidavits read together revealed a very sorry state of affairs prevailing in the Mantralaya with regard to the decision making process adopted by various departments. 13. It came on record through the above affidavits that when the matter was heard by respondent No.3, Shri S.Y. Kursange, Deputy Secretary was present and received instruction from the Hon’ble Minister to prepare draft of the order. He, in turn, directed Shri A.A. Godbole, Desk Officer to prepare draft order. Accordingly, Mr.Godbole prepared draft order dictating it to one Shri Suryakant Gole, Clerk whereunder the revision filed by the petitioner was to be allowed. It has further come on record that Shri Factural Matrix : Shocking fact brought on Record : S.Y. Kursange, Deputy Secretary again instructed Shri Godbole to prepare a revised draft rejecting revision application filed by the petitioner. This business of preparing one draft allowing revision application and another rejecting revision application revealed that none of these orders were dictated by the Hon’ble Minister himself, who had heard revision application filed by the petitioner. Both draft orders running counter to each other were prepared by Shri A.A. Godbole, Desk Officer, who was not present at the time of hearing. He was completely unaware of the rival contentions canvassed by the parties during the course of hearing. The Hon’ble Minister has filed an affidavit dated 2nd September, 2008, the relevant part of which reads as under: "..... He was completely unaware of the rival contentions canvassed by the parties during the course of hearing. The Hon’ble Minister has filed an affidavit dated 2nd September, 2008, the relevant part of which reads as under: "..... After hearing the parties in the Revision Petition, I did not dictate order neither it is possible for me to dictate each and every order considering the voluminous work of my ministry. The practice followed by my department after hearing the Revision Application, I asked my departmental officers to go through the merits of the case and submit a note accordingly for approval......" (Emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Minister has further stated in para-4 of the affidavit that: ".....Accordingly, my department had prepare the first draft for my approval which is at ‘Exhibit-h’ to this Writ Petition. However, the said draft was not brought before me for my approval. The Deputy Secretary and his subordinate officers discussed the matter with me with reference to the Application of the Respondent No.4 dated the 5th September, 2006. During the course, of discussion, I directed them to check up whether the proposed shop was an unauthorised structure or otherwise. Hence, it was found necessary to verify the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s tax receipt of the proposed shop." "I state and submit that the Respondent No.4 has submitted the Assessment Certificate of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of the extended area of 200 sq.fts. In view of this subsequent evidence, my department changed the first draft and the second draft was submitted for my approval. Since the second draft was prepared with all the relevant records and it was well supported by merits and I approved the same....." (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, having seen the mode and manner of decision making process and the procedure adopted for deciding the appeals, revisions, review and/or stay applications, this Court was compelled to pass the order dated 4th September 2008 directing the State Government to place on record the procedure, normally, followed and adopted by all the departments of the State Government of Maharashtra while hearing and deciding quasi-judicial proceedings. 15. 15. The State Government, after the aforesaid order dated 4th September, 2008, appeared through Shri V.A. Gangal, Special Counsel and informed that a committee has been constituted consisting of the Chief Secretary, Law and Judiciary with the officers of General Administration Department with Shri V.A. Gangal, Advocate and Special Counsel for the State of Maharashtra, to streamline the procedure of hearing and deciding quasi-judicial proceedings by the officers of the State of Maharashtra including the Hon’ble Ministers of the respective departments. On the suggestion of this Court, Mr. Anand Grover, who was appointed as Amicus Curie to assist this Court, was also included in the said committee. 16. The aforesaid committee was granted time to submit their report. The said committee submitted its report on 7th January, 2009 where under the guidelines were framed and the procedure was laid down prescribing the mode and manner of hearing the revisions, appeals, review applications including application for interim reliefs by the State Government and its functionaries so as to streamline the decision making process. The said report was accepted by this Court by consent of the parties. Procedural Guidelines for Quasi-Judicial Authority : 17. This Court in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the following procedure to be adopted by quasi-judicial authorities including the Ministers, Secretaries, officials and litigants while hearing and determining appeals, revisions, review applications and interim applications etc.: (1) Memo of appeal or revision, review and or any application shall specifically mention under which enactment and/or under what provisions of law the said appeal/ review/ revision or application is filed. (2) The appellant/ applicant shall give a synopsis of concise dates and events along with the memo of appeal or revision. (3) The appeal, revision and/or application shall be filed within a period stipulated under the law governing the subject from the receipt of the order/ decision which is impugned in the above matter. In the event of delay, it should only be entertained along with application for condonation of delay. (4) At the time of presentation of the appeal, review or revision, the applicant shall, if, filed in person, establish his identity by necessary documents or he shall file proceedings through authorised agent, and/or advocate. (5) The application shall be accompanied by sufficient copies for every opponents/ respondents and also supply 2 extra copies for the authorities. (4) At the time of presentation of the appeal, review or revision, the applicant shall, if, filed in person, establish his identity by necessary documents or he shall file proceedings through authorised agent, and/or advocate. (5) The application shall be accompanied by sufficient copies for every opponents/ respondents and also supply 2 extra copies for the authorities. (6) For issuance of summons to the opponents/ respondents, court fees/ postal stamps of sufficient amount shall be affixed on the application form/ memo of appeal or revision as the case may be. (7) In addition to service through the authority, appellant/ applicant may separately send the additional copies to each of the opponents/ respondents by registered post acknowledgement due and may file affidavit of service along with evidence of despatch. The postal and acknowledgment alone should be treated as evidence of service in the event of service through postal authority. (8) In the event of an urgency of obtaining an interim relief like stay, injunction/ other interim order or direction or status-quo etc, a specific case of urgency should be made out in the application, which the authority may entertain subject to the brief reasons recorded. The said order shall also be communicated immediately to all the effected persons. The proof of timely despatch of the Registered A.D.s and all the acknowledgments shall be separately maintained. (9) If there is real urgency, the concerned authority may grant ex parte interim/ ad-interim relief for the reasons to be recorded for a particular period only within which time the service on the concerned opponents/ respondents shall be effected. Appellant/ applicant should file affidavit of service, if such party requires early hearing or continuation for interim relief or of an appeal, revision or review. (10) The competent authority shall also communicate the next date of hearing to all the parties along with time and place and shall, as far as possible, adhere to the said date and time of hearing. (11) The concerned official in every department should be asked to remain present at the time of hearing and assist the concerned authority in the matter. (12) Reasonable sufficient time be provided between the date of receipt of notice and the actual date of hearing. If any party is unable to remain present at the time of hearing for a sufficient cause, one further opportunity should be given to such party for hearing. (12) Reasonable sufficient time be provided between the date of receipt of notice and the actual date of hearing. If any party is unable to remain present at the time of hearing for a sufficient cause, one further opportunity should be given to such party for hearing. (13) The authority hearing quasi-judicial matters shall duly fix a date, time and venue for such hearing. Such authority shall refrain from interacting with third party during the course of hearing either in person or on phone and shall not do any act which would tend to affect or prejudice fair hearing. (14) A speaking order shall be passed by the authority hearing the matter as early as possible after the hearing is concluded and, as far as possible, within a period of four to eight weeks from the conclusion of the hearing, on the basis of the record before it as well as the submissions made at the hearing. The order must contain reasons in support of the order. (15) The authority shall not receive information or documents after the hearing is concluded and/or shall not pass the speaking order on the basis of such documents and/or information unless such material is brought to the notice of the parties to the proceedings following rules of natural justice. (16) The order passed by the quasi-judicial authority on the hearing shall be forthwith communicated to all the parties by Registered A.D. (17) No application or request or prayer from the political worker, Member of Legislative Assembly, Member of Parliament or third party shall be entertained in the quasi-judicial proceedings unless such person is a party respondent or intervenor in the proceedings. (18) The order pronounced shall be communicated to the parties immediately. (19) Record of hearing shall be meticulously maintained in a separate Roznama. (20) The notings of concerned officials/ law assistants to assist the authority shall include only content of facts and legal provisions along with case laws, if any. (21) The notings made by the law officials/ concerned officials shall not be in the form of order. 18. (19) Record of hearing shall be meticulously maintained in a separate Roznama. (20) The notings of concerned officials/ law assistants to assist the authority shall include only content of facts and legal provisions along with case laws, if any. (21) The notings made by the law officials/ concerned officials shall not be in the form of order. 18. In addition to the above guidelines, the quasi-judicial authorities shall also follow the parameters laid down by this Court in the case of Lokmanya Nagar Priyadarshini v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) Bom.C.R. 929 , which read as under: Parameters "(a) While considering the stay application, the authority concerned should at least briefly set out case of the applicant/ appellant, as the case may be. (b) While granting the ex parte order, it should be granted for a shorted duration with short notice to the opponent(s). (c) If ex parte stay is to be granted, then the authority passing the order should specify the reasons in short for grant of ex parte order. .(d) The Authority passing the order should, (i) record its findings as to whether or not a prima facie case is made out with short reasons in support of the finding; (ii) record its finding as to in whose favour balance of convenience lies, and (iii) record its finding whether non-grant of interim relief would cause any prejudice to the person seeking interim relief. (e) The ingredients at (d) (i) to (iii) should be discussed and positive finding should be recorded while granting or refusing to grant interim relief." 19. The aforesaid procedural guidelines shall also be applicable to all quasi-judicial authorities in respect of hearing of appeals, revisions, review applications/ interlocutory applications, where there are no specific rules prescribed for hearing under a specific law like Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, etc. 20. Before parting with the matter, I may place on record appreciation of the services rendered by Mr.Anand Grover, Advocate, Amicus Curiae and all other advocates and also assistance rendered by the Chief Secretary, Law and Judiciary with officers of the General Administration Department of the Government of Maharashtra to this Court. 21. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra is directed to circulate this judgment to all concerned along with his letter emphasising the need to follow it, so as to exhibit transparency in the decision making process. 21. The Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra is directed to circulate this judgment to all concerned along with his letter emphasising the need to follow it, so as to exhibit transparency in the decision making process. The compliance report submitted to this Court will be highly appreciated.