1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.83/2010 Pundlik S/o Namdev Kolte Age 50 years, Occ-Agril R/o Kolte Takali, Tq.Phulambri Dist.Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] Sub-Divisional Magistrate Aurangabad. 3] Superintendent of Police Rural, Aurangabad. 4] P.S.I. Wadod Bazar Police Station, Tq.Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad. [Copy to be served on for Resp.No.1 to 4 Public Prosecutor High Court Bench at Aurangabad] .. RESPONDENTS .... 2 Shri R.V.Gore,Adv.for petitioner Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondents 1 to 4. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 25/01/2010 ORAL JUDGEMENT [PER HARDAS,J.] : 1] At the outset, Shri Gore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to amend the Petition, by incorporating a prayer for directing respondent no. 1 to expeditiously decide the stay application of the petitioner. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3] By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents to permit the petitioner to remain present for flag hoisting ceremony scheduled to be held on 26 th January 2010, at village Kolte Takli, Tq. Phulambri, 3 Dist.Aurangabad and by virtue of the amended prayer clause, the petitioner prays for directing respondents to expeditiously decide stay application of the petitioner. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this Petition, may briefly be stated thus : 4] Pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner, by an order dated 31/12/2009, the petitioner was externed from the Districts of Aurangabad and Jalna, under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, for a period of 2 years. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities externing the petitioner, filed an Appeal on 7/1/2010 under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act. Alongwith the memo of Appeal, petitioner also filed an Application for stay. According to the petitioner, the application for stay has not been heard so far. The petitioner is anxious for attending flag hoisting ceremony scheduled to be held on 26/1/2010 at village Kolte Takli, Tq.Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad. In the light of the fact that the Appeal is pending and the stay application is pending, granting relief at prayer clause “B”, would amount to passing an order during the pendency of the Appeal. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant relief at prayer Clause “B”. However, according to us, the respondents ought to have 4 expeditiously decided the stay application. Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, learned A.P.P. accepts notice of this Petition on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. 5] Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parvez Faizulla Khan V/s A.N.Roy and others 2008 (1) B.Cr.C.350. This was a petition where the detention order of the petitioner therein was challenged. The Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the detention order. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment, in our considered opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6] In that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition in terms of the amended prayer clause and direct respondent no.1, to expeditiously decide the stay application of the petitioner. 7] Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms with no orders as to costs. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/criwp83-10 5