Judgment : S.A. BOBDE, J. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner has approached this Court against the orders of the respondent Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation refusing to grant the petitioner's request for duplicate receipts on the ground that those receipts are not lost, but are in possession of the respondent no.4. 3) The petitioner purchased cotton bales from trader M/s. Baba Sai Corporation and deposited the same in respondent Warehouse at Arvi, through the broker, i.e. respondent no.4. There is some dispute as to who carried the cotton bales for deposit. The respondent Warehousing Corporation issued the receipts, which are on record, in the name of petitioner M/s. Ruchi GlobalLimited.Apparently,thereceipts were retained by the respondent no.4 Maheshwari and are still in his possession. In these circumstances, the petitioner applied for issuance of duplicate receipts on the ground that they were lost, so that they could take delivery of the cotton bales, which were kept at Arvi. The respondent no.4 Maheshwari apparently objected before respondent Warehousing Corporation and claimed that the receipts in question were not lost as claimed by the petitioner, but were in his possession and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to duplicate receipts. The respondent Warehousing Corporation relying on the Bombay Warehouses Rules, 1960 framed under the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959 vide Rule 15 rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that receipts are not lost since they are admittedly in possession of respondent no.4. In these 4) Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner claims that the 5 receipts are lost, but it does not claim that the receipts have become non-existent and lost in that sense. He contended that the term `lost' does not necessarily mean annihilation or disappearance of that thing without knowledge of its whereabouts, but a thing can be said to be lost, even if the person claiming the loss, has lost control over the object, but knows where it is. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in The Sialkot Industrial Corporation v. Union of India and another (ILR (1978) 1 Delhi) where the learned Judge has made the following observations in respect of the term `lost' : “10. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in The Sialkot Industrial Corporation v. Union of India and another (ILR (1978) 1 Delhi) where the learned Judge has made the following observations in respect of the term `lost' : “10. According to the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word `loss' means `the act or fact of losing, failure to keep possession, deprivation, theft of property'. In the same dictionary, the word `lost' is defined as meaning `not made use of, ruined or destroyed physically or morally, parted with, no longer possessed, taken away or beyond reach of attainment'. According to Law Lexicon, Vol.2 page 44, the word `loss' has no 6 precise hard and fast meaning. It is a generic and a comprehensive term covering different situations. Loss results when a thing is destroyed. But it also is caused when the owner has been made to part with it although the thing remains in tact. In this sense, loss means and implies `a deprivation'. It is synonymous with damage resulting either in consequence of destruction, deprivation or even depreciation and when a party is dispossessed of a thing, either when it can never be recovered or when it is withheld from him, he is deemed to suffer the loss.” (Emphasis supplied) There is no doubt that the judgment referred to above lays down the correct position in law, since every time a person claims that something is lost or he does not know where the thing is, it is not necessary that thing should have been annihilated, but it is sufficient if the complainant has lost control of it or has been deprived of it. A person may complain that a thing is lost. That thing may be found with another, who may not hand it over to the owner, but claims it himself. The owner 7 could still maintain that the thing is lost indeed. It is a loss to him in the sense he has no control over it and cannot use it or produce it. Indeed, the definition of `theft' in Section 379 of Indian Penal Code suggests this position in law. Theft is said to have taken place when a thing is removed from the lawful custody of the owner and it is taken as stolen. Indeed, the definition of `theft' in Section 379 of Indian Penal Code suggests this position in law. Theft is said to have taken place when a thing is removed from the lawful custody of the owner and it is taken as stolen. Thus, if the word `lost' is understood in this sense, the petitioner would be entitled to duplicate receipts in view of Section 33 of the Bombay Warehouses Act, 1959, but Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4, and Shri Mahalle, learned Counsel for the intervener, submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is false in that the petitioner is not a depositor of the goods at Arvi Warehouse at all and the depositor of the goods at the Warehouse is the respondent no.4 or Bhagwati Prasad, who is employee of the respondent no.4. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Bhagwati Prasad was acting as a mercantile Agent of the petitioner. Thus, there is a 8 dispute of facts as stated above. 5) In the circumstances, having regard to the disputed questions of facts and primarily having regard to the admitted position that the respondent Warehousing Corporation has not granted hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders, which are administrative in nature, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and direct the respondent Warehousing Corporation to decide the question of issuance of duplicate receipts after hearing the petitioner, respondent no.4 and intervener. The parties shall be allowed to produce such documents as may be necessary. The respondent Warehousing Corporation shall pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks after the parties appear before it. The parties are directed to appear before the respondent Warehousing Corporation on 15/3/2012.9 6) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.