1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3885 OF 2009 Ayub Rashid Bagwan, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Petitioner Versus Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp.No.1. Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for Resp.Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken on board for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the 2 Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19-06-2009 passed by Under Secretary, State of Maharashtra in Proceeding bearing No. MUN/4208/813/PRA. 113/08/NVI-15 by which interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner on 11-12-2008 was vacated. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he preferred appeal against the judgment and order passed by Collector, Jalgaon in S.R. 18/2007 dated 17-11-2008 under Section 44(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Municipal Council, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965. In the said appeal, respondent No. 3 granted interim stay on 11-12-2008. Thereafter, respondent No.2 submitted his say on 19-06-2009 and on the same day, respondent No. 3 vacated interim stay without giving hearing to the petitioner. 5. It is clear from the order dated 19-06-2009 that respondent No. 3 without hearing the 3 petitioner, vacated interim stay granted on 11-12-2008. Though the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was directed to file their affidavit in reply explaining how much time, the concerned authority will take to decide the appeal, till today, affidavit in reply is not filed by them. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, order dated 19-06-2009 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside and interim stay granted on 11-12-2008 to continue till hearing and final disposal of appeal pending before respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the said appeal as early as possible. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp3885.09