1 Criminal W.P. No.917 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.917 OF 2010 Sayyad Muzafooruddin Khan, Age-60 years, Occu-Retired By.S.P. R/o.Salim Manzil, Next to VIP Function Hall, Baijipura, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai) 2. Settlement Commissioner, Central Building Pune Tq. and Dist. Pune. 3. Mr.B.G.Bangar, Age-52 years, Occu-Govt. Service, C/o.City Survey Office, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad, 4. Ramesh Baburao Mehtre, Age - 50 years, Occu-Service, R/o. Vishwa Karma Colony, Near Ranaji Hall, Sector 11, Azad Chowk, Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.Javed R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.kale, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4. 2 Criminal W.P. No.917 of 2010 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 06/12/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and directing respondent no.2 to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 25/02/2010, seeking sanction to prosecute respondents no.3 and 4. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner intends to file a private criminal complaint against respondents no.3 and 4 and accordingly had submitted a proposal dated 25/02/2010 seeking sanction to prosecute respondents no.3 and 4. The aforesaid proposal has been addressed to the Settlement Commissioner i.e. respondent no.2. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid proposal submitted by the petitioner on 25/02/2010 is pending consideration with respondent no.2. 4. We have heard Shri.J.R.Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 3 Criminal W.P. No.917 of 2010 and the learned counsel on behalf of respondents no.3 and 4. In the light of the limited relief, which the petitioner has sought for in this petition, we consider it appropriate to decide this petition finally at this stage. 5. Since the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 25/02/2010 is pending consideration with the respondent no.2, we allow this petition to the limited extent of issuing a writ of mandamus, directing respondent no.2 to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner, if pending, in accordance with law, within a period of 4 months from today, and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/DEC. 2010/cri.w.p.917-10