1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1608/2011 (Rashmi S. Panpattee VERSUS The State of Mah. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri F.T. Mirza, counsel for the petitioners. Shri V.A. Thakare, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1 , 2011 . Heard. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent no.1 did not commit any error in granting stay to the order passed by the respondent no.2 in a revision filed by the respondent no.7 as it was not necessary to continue with the further enquiry till the revision was decided by the respondent no.1. In case, a stay was not granted in favour of the respondent no.7, the proceedings would have continued against the respondent no.7 and ultimately if the revision was allowed, it would have been realized that the exercise made during the pendency of the revision would be an exercise in futility. At the most, the respondent no.1 can be directed to decide the revision filed by the respondent no.7 as early as possible, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, though the writ petition is dismissed, the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the revision filed by the respondent no.7 as early as possible and within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties before the respondent no.1. 2 Order accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE