( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5982 OF 2010 Rajaram s/o Bhimrao Magar & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S.R. Bharad, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondent/State. Mr. Y.B. Pathan, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved due to rejection of their application for ad-interim stay by the learned Divisional Commissioner in the appeal No. 8/2010. The learned Commissioner held that there was no reason to grant status quo order and keep the order of the District Collector in abeyance. 3. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on going ( 2 ) through the judgement and order of the Collector, Osmanabad and the impugned order of the Divisional Commissioner, it appears prima facie that the Collector noticed certain objectionable conduct of the Deputy Collector who passed the order without taking due care to observe necessary procedure. The Collector was so hesitated that he proposed departmental enquiry against the Deputy Collector. Whether the Deputy Collector can be departmentally dealt with or not is another issue. The fact remains that the Collector found that the mutations approved by the Deputy Collector (L.R.) were rather dubious in nature. It is for such reason that the Divisional Commissioner refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. The impugned order does not appear to be perverse. It is rendered in the exercise of discretion available to the appellate authority. Hence, no interference is called for at this juncture. However, since the interim relief is denied to the petitioners, the learned Divisional Commissioner shall expedite the final hearing of the appeal and shall dispose it of within period of a couple of months as far as possible and moreover, the respondents be directed to refrain themselves from making any construction or create any third party interest in respect of the plot in question. ( 3 ) 4. The learned counsel for the respondents is present. He is informed about the above order regarding prohibition from making construction and changing of the position till disposal of the appeal. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp5982-10