(1) WP 10046.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10046 OF 2010 Naresh Chitra Mandir Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard Advocate Shri A.S. Deshmukh for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 3. Grievance of the petitioner is he was not heard by respondent no.1 while passing impugned order on 15.10.2010. Shri Deshmukh is striving hard to show to this Court the compliances done and also the authorization certificate/no objection received, in order to demonstrate that the lapses and lacuna noticed are not correct and in any case no longer survive. He therefore states that instead of remanding the matter on that count, this Court may (2) WP 10046.2010 itself look into the compliances and record appropriate finding. 2. Learned A.G.P. on the other hand contends that whether there are compliances and whether alleged certificates/no objections are in accordance with law, is to be verified by competent authority and this Court for the first time cannot record that finding. 3. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing petitioner to appear before respondent no.1 and to demonstrate to respondent no.1 his compliances and various no- objection certificates received, so as to enable that authority to find out whether alleged lapses or prejudices were in existence or still exist. 4. The interest of petitioner can be protected by continuing interim order granted by this Court on 22.10.2010 till respondent no.1 applies its mind in this respect. Accordingly, the impugned order sustained by respondent no.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is restored back to file of (3) WP 10046.2010 respondent no.1 for taking decision afresh. Petitioner to appear before that authority on 5.4.2011 and abide by its further instructions in the matter. Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue during pendency of the proceedings before respondent no.1. Petition accordingly allowed. No costs. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp