1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4948 OF 2009. ( Sharad Shrawan Tayade -: versus :- Addl. Commissioner and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 9, 2009. Heard Shri J.B. Kasat, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,2 and 5, Shri Anjnikar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Shri S.D Desai, learned counsel for respondent no.8. Grievance made by learned counsel for petitioner is that, interim stay granted by respondent no.1 Additional Commissioner, during pendency of the appeal was not extended and after learning about it an application to extend it was moved, but that application is shown to have been rejected on 27.10.2009. Learned counsel for petitioner states that no orders was passed on 27.10.2009 and infact, the said order has been written on 10.11.2009. Learned A.G.P. as also other learned counsel appearing for respondents, are disputing this. They point out that the interim order was not operating for some time and hence, fresh elections for the post of Sarpanch were declared 2 and those elections have also been held on 16.11.2009. Respondent no.4 has been elected as new Sarpanch and he has also started functioning accordingly. The facts show that interim order was granted by the Additional Commissioner and it was operating till 20.10.2009. it was not extended further and hence on 27.10.2009 i.e. within 7 days, application for its extension was moved. There were no developments having any bearing on the said stay between 20.10.2009 till 27.10.2009, and hence respondent no.1 could have very well continued the order after verifying the position or then in case of dispute could have directed the parties to maintain status quo. The impugned order shows that it is passed on an application which was filed on 27.10.2009, but then below it while putting signature date 27.11.2009 has been mentioned. According to learned counsel for petitioner, this is date 10.11.2009. As it is a disputed question of facts, I do not find it necessary to go into it. It is obvious that even on 10.11.2009 the election, for the post of Sarpanch were not held and those are held on 16.11.2009. Hence as situation had not become irreversible either on 27.10.2009 or even on 10.11.2009, the Commissioner could have restored the interim order and could have taken appeal itself for final hearing on merits. Having once granted interim order, this was the right course which ought to have been followed. However, in view of the subsequent events, I find that at this stage as new sarpanch has already started functioning, interest of justice demands that pending appeal 3 of petitioner is disposed of as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2009. This Court has while issuing notice on 16.11.2009 stated that the elections then scheduled are subject to further orders of this Court in the matter. Those elections are now subjected to further orders on pending appeal of petitioner before respondent no.1. The petitioner as also the respondents shall appear before respondent no.1 on 15.12.2009 and shall abide by its further direction in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.