1 wp938.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 938 OF 2011 Sirhan Bin Faisal Bin Maazi. ....Petitioner. Vs. The UOI, through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs & ors. ....Respondents. Mr.Hemant Surve and Abhijeet Kandarkar, advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere, advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for State. CORAM:- P.V.HARDAS AND M.N.GILANI, JJ DATED:- APRIL 8, 2011 P.C. 1 Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 We have heard Shri Surve, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Dere, learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 3 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide legal notice dated 1/5/2010 issued by the Petitioner through his Counsel requesting for grant of sanction to prosecute the 2 wp938.11 Respondents. 4 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states on instruction that the aforesaid application/communication/notice is pending consideration with the Respondent and has not been decided. In that light of the matter, therefore we are inclined to allow this Petition and direct the Respondents to decide the said application/notice, if pending, in accordance with law within a stipulated period. 5 We accordingly allow this Petition and direct the Respondents to decide the application/notice/communication dated 1/5/2010 seeking sanction to prosecute the Respondents, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the Petitioner. 6 Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (M.N.GILANI, J) (P.V.HARDAS, J)