: 1 : wp.1411.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1411 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. Shri Rahulkumar Babasaheb Yewale .. Respondent Mr.A.B. Vagyani, AGP, for the Petitioners Mr.V.B. Tapkir for the Respondent CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Vagyani, the learned AGP and after the impugned order was passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 9.6.2010, a fresh order of suspension has been issued against the respondent Officer on 20.7.2010 and, therefore, as of now, the challenge to the impugned order need not be gone into. 2. Mr.Vagyani then invited our attention to the following observations made by the Tribunal and urged that the said observations are required to be deleted / expunged: : 2 : wp.1411.2011 “4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondents, it is clear that the order dated 22.5.1979 will have no application at all in the instant case. The respondents have failed to produce any empowerment empowering the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) to issue such a suspension order under Rule 3(1-A) of the Bombay Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1956”. 3. Mr.Vagyani submitted that these observations will have far reaching effects if they are continued. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that the State Government issues a fresh notification so as to delegate the powers of the Director General of Police to the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) and that would be the appropriate remedial measure. 4. Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)