1 wp 4334.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4334 OF 2011 Ram Bhaurao Jagtap .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri B. R. Sabale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Sabale, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Shri Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 2. Shri Sabale, the learned counsel contends that the Deputy Commissioner Supply, Aurangabad has allowed the revision solely on the ground that the enquiry is not conducted by the Tahsildar. If the order of the District Supply Officer is perused, 2 wp 4334.11 it would be clear that the same is conducted by the Tahsildar. As such, the learned counsel contends that premise on which the order is passed itself is illegal. The learned counsel further contends that inspite of the fact that the directions were given to complete the enquiry within 45 days, the same is not completed. 3. The order is not prejudicial to any of the party. It only remands the matter back to the authority for re-enquiry with an opportunity to the parties to put forth their case. It is further directed to the authorities to complete the enquiry within 45 days. 4. The said order is an innocuous order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions assures that the enquiry would be completed expeditiously. 5. In the result, no case for interference is made out. The authorities would complete the enquiry expeditiously as directed in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11