Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Shri S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 1(a).

2. The above petition seeks to quash the judgment passed by the respondent no.1 dated 29.05.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.3 was allowed and order passed in Revocation Order No.4/18/TS/2006-CCP/5098 dated 10.11.2006 was set aside.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as required for disposing of the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner raised an objection to the permissions granted by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3 in respect of the development sought to be carried out in the property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. After issuing a show cause notice, the respondent no.2 revoked the licences issued in favour of the respondent no.3. In terms of the provisions of the City of Corporation Act, an appeal came to be preferred by the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.1 which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment in the manner as stated herein above. Being dissatisfied in the manner in which the appeal as well as the merits of the appeal is disposed of, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition.

4. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that on the earlier occasion this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No.134 of 2007 by order dated 27.04.2007 had directed the respondent no.1 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent no.3 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the respondent no.1 thereafter gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply before the respondent no.1 raising different contentions in support of the order impugned in the said appeal filed by the respondent no.3. The matter according to the petitioner was thereafter posted for hearing/argument. On two occasions, when the petitioner along with her advocate were present, the matter was adjourned as the respondent no.1 was not available. On the subsequent date, the Secretary of the respondent no.1 informed the petitioner, respondent no.3 and the other parties to the appeal to file their written arguments. Accordingly, the written submissions came to be filed by the respective parties and the matter was posted for further hearing before the respondent no.1. But however, the respondent no.1 without even giving a hearing or holding a discussion in connection with the said appeal, the Secretary of the respondent no.1 informed the petitioner and the other parties and the respondent no.3 that the judgment would be communicated. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had filed written submission on 24.05.2010 and no further date was given on the said date. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner was served with an advance copy of the rejoinder to the written arguments filed by the respondent no.3 and the petitioner was waiting to advance oral submissions in the said appeal. But however, the learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that on 30.05.2010 the petitioner received a copy of the caveat notice filed by the respondent no.3 inter-alia stating therein that the appeal was disposed of by the respondent no.1. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner learnt thereafter that the matter came to be disposed of on 29.05.2010 only after the Secretary of the respondent no.1 telephonically informed about the disposal of the appeal on 31.05.2010. The learned Senior Counsel as such submits that the disposal of the appeal by the respondent no.1 is in breach of the principle of natural justice as according to him no adequate hearing was g