1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3436 OF 2009 Mahesh s/o Mohanrao Bhise, Age 23 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Ward No.17, Somwar Peth, Basmat, District Hingoli .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Hon’ble Minister Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 3. The Collector, Hingoli, District Hingoli 4. The Returning Officer, Municipal Council, Basmat, District Hingoli 5. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Basmat, District Hingoli. 6. Vasant s/o Balajirao Chepurwar, Age 39 years, Occu.Business, R/o New Mondha, Near Maruti Mandir, Basmat, District Hingoli .. RESPONDENTS Shri A.B.Dhongade, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.B.Choudhari, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 Shri Ravindra Nirmal Advocate holding for Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.6 Respondents 4 and 5 served. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 13th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may be stated thus : Respondent No.6 herein had filed a dispute before the District Collector, Hingoli on the ground that at the time of filing of nomination, the petitioner was below 21 years of age. The District Collector, it appears, allowed the proceedings and held that the petitioner was disqualified as on the relevant date, the petitioner was below 21 years of age. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had filed Writ Petition No.961 of 2007 in this Court. The petitioner ultimately withdrew the said writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the State Government. The petitioner accordingly filed appeal before the respondent No.2. The petitioner was intimated various dates of hearing but as the matter now stands, the appeal which was filed in April 2007 has 3 remained undecided. The petitioner, therefore, prays for directing the respondent No.2 to decide the said appeal expeditiously. 3. In the light of the limited relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we deem it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. We accordingly allow this petition and direct respondent No.2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner in April 2007, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader undertakes to communicate this order to the respondents. 6. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3436.09wp) 4