1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1727 OF 2010 Sanjay Babulal Wani & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr. R.L.Kute, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. N.R.Bhavar, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent no. 4. ........................... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, J. & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside notice dated 12/8/2009 issued by the respondent no. 2 on an application dated 2/7/2009 filed by the respondent no. 4 on the ground that the said proceedings or the notice is illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and is contrary to the provisions of Section 63 (2-b) of the Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986. Pending the petition, certain ad-interim reliefs are prayed for. 2. At the out set, we make it clear that we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition which is against the proceedings of issuance of notice. The petitioner has adequate alternate remedy available in the law, in the event the proceedings culminate in the orders which are adverse to the interest of the petitioner. We have 2 accordingly heard Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. V.D. Hon on behalf of respondent no. 4. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the decision and about the inclination of the Court, urged before us by referring to certain orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches that necessary orders be passed in respect of not giving effect to the order passed by the respondents in the event the said order is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. 3. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties and in the light of similar orders of similar nature passed by the Co-ordinate Benches, we dismiss the petition summarily with direction that in the event an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed by the respondent – authorities, the same shall not given effect to for the period of 10 weeks in order to enable the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available to the petitioner in law. We make it clear that granting of such order would not come in the way of the appropriate forum while entertaining the challenge to the adverse order passed by the respondents – authorities and the authorities shall decide the question of grant of stay on its own merit uninfluenced by the order that we have passed. 4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with no costs with the aforesaid directions. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1727.10