1 wp1350.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1350 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Yogesh Bobade holding for Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011 The short grievance of the petitioner before this Court is about the indefinite continuation of interim orders to his prejudice. Advocate Mr. Shinde points out that in Revision filed by present respondent no.5 exparte stay was granted on 05.06.2010 and thereafter the parties have been heard finally on 23.08.2010. The matter came to be closed for orders. The stay granted was to operate for specific period and that period expired in the month of October, 2010. Hence, the quota of fair price shop and kerosene was about to be released and at that time by impugned communication dated 29th December, 2010, 2 wp1350.11 the said interim order has been extended further. He therefore contends that this is nothing but refusal to exercise jurisdiction. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Advocate Mr. Yogesh Bobade holding for Advocate Mr. Tope support the impugned order. They contend that as final orders are not passed and interim orders were already granted, same have been rightly continued. 2. After hearing respective counsel, it is apparent that earlier grant of interim orders was for a period of three months and during that period, the respondent no.1 could not pass the final orders though hearing was over on 23.08.2010. Because of this difficulty interim order has been extended further on 29th December, 2010. But then this extension now is not for any specified period. As the hearing concluded more than 7 months back, normally final orders should have been passed, but no such final orders are passed till date. 3. In this situation, the interest of justice will be met by directing the respondent no.1 to pass final orders in the matter, if not passed already as early as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order to it, if not passed already. Liberty to petitioner to approach again, if appropriate orders in this respect are not passed within said period. 3 wp1350.11 4. With these directions and liberty, the Petition is disposed of. 5. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1350.11