1 (WP 932 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 932 OF 2011 Suresh Motiram Mali ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.J.K. Hegde for Petitioner Mr.C.R. Sonawane -AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the police licence was suspended by an order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by the Commissioner though the statutory appeal provided by the Act against the said order. He, therefore immediately filed an appeal and also filed an application for stay of the impugned order. The grievance of the Petitioner is that even after the application for stay was filed, the Competent Authority has neither decided the appeal nor decided his application for stay of that impugned order. It is 2 (WP 932 of 2011) submitted that his licence is suspended for a period of three moths and police are now asking him to close-down his restaurant business. It is submitted that period of three moths would be over if the appeal is not decided expeditiously. 3. In my view, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Bhaskar B. Bhosle Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2003 (6) Bom. C.R.592] will squarely apply to the facts of the present case since the statutory appeal is provided against the impugned order, the competent authority was under a legal obligation either to decide the appeal expeditiously or decide his application for stay. 4. Under these circumstances, the Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of four weeks from today and during the pendency of the appeal, the impugned order dated 14.1.2001 passed by the Respondent No.3 is stayed. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)