Judgment Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The proceedings were initiated in respect of cancellation of license of the fair price shop of the Respondent No.4. The District Supply Officer, cancelled the license of the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. The present petitioner was not made a party, as such filed intervention application. The petitioner and Respondent No.4 were heard by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal. The Respondent No.4 preferred Revision before the Hon'ble Minister. In the said Revision the present petitioner was Respondent No.3. The Revision came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the notice is said to have been issued to the present petitioner in the said Revision, the said notice was never served and as such in absence of the present petitioner, the Revision came to be allowed. The learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Minister has not taken into consideration various facets of the matter. The impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Mrs. Ansari, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 supports the order and submits that the Hon'ble Minister has taken into consideration all the facets of the matter and thereafter has allowed the Revision. Even notices were issued to the present petitioner and he remained absent. No illegality is committed by the Hon'ble Minister in passing the order. 6. As there were rival contentions in respect of service of the notice of the proceedings before the Hon'ble Minister upon the petitioner. I had called upon the present Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to file affidavit specifying the status of the service of notice on the present petitioner. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have filed affidavit stating that though the office of the Respondent No.3 issued the copy of the letter for serving it on the petitioner, inadvertently the petitioner was not served. 7. In light of the fact that the petitioner was a party before the Hon'ble Minister in the Revision and no notices were served on him, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and the order impugned can not be sustained on this ground. 8. 7. In light of the fact that the petitioner was a party before the Hon'ble Minister in the Revision and no notices were served on him, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and the order impugned can not be sustained on this ground. 8. As I am setting aside the order only on the count that the present petitioner was not served with the notice, I am not entering into the merits of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respective parties. 9. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Hon'ble Minister. The parties shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister in the said Revision on 23.1.2012 and the Hon'ble Minister shall endeavour to decide the said Revision as expeditiously as possible. 10. Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that the Respondent No.4 has deposited amount also and the quota could not be released because of the orders of the status-quo passed by this Court. The order of status-quo be continued, so that the Respondent State would not allot the said license to any other person. Needless to state, when the matter is remitted to the Revisional authority, the State shall not issue any fresh proclamation for allotment of the shop in village Khasgaon, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad, till the disposal of the Revision. 11. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.