1 wp4983-85-11.doc ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4983 OF 2011 Manoj Parshuram Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4985 OF 2011 Anjali S. Kulkarni .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi for the petitioner Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for respondent no.4 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 4th AUGUST, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution 2 wp4983-85-11.doc of India, petitioners original appellants challenge the order dt. 11.11.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur staying the hearing of appeals preferred by them under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 till the hearing and final disposal of Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2006 which is pending in this court. 3. In the present case, petitioner in Writ Petition No.4983 of 2011, Manoj Shinde was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur in Regular Criminal Case No.311 of 2003 under section 497 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said conviction Shinde, preferred Appeal before the Sessions Court under section 374 of the Criminal P.C. The said Criminal Appeal was allowed by the learned II Adhoc Aditional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur and the conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolhapur in Regular Criminal Case No.311 of 2003 is set aside. Against the said acquittal order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2006 is pending in this court. 4. Considering the pendency of Criminal Writ Petitions, the Tribunal stayed further hearing of appeal preferred by Shinde 3 wp4983-85-11.doc in School Tribunal in another Writ Petition No.4985 of 2011. 5. The management terminated the services of petitioner Anjali S. Kulkarni on the ground of moral turpitude. 6. Considering these facts, the Tribunal stayed the hearing of both the appeals till the hearing and final disposal of Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2006. 7. In any case, it is an interlocutory order and therefore, there is no question of entertaining both the petitions. The learned counsel for management states that the said Criminal Writ Petition No.2 of 2006 is already listed on provisional board for final hearing. 8. Both the petitions are rejected. (K.K.TATED,J.)