7. wp 415, 416 & 417-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 415 OF 2011 Bharat Brahmadutt Singh Thakur, ] Age : 44 Years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant of ] Mumbai, residing at 202, Madhav Ashram, ] Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (E), Mumbai - 400 077. ] Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra. ] 2. The Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, HQ Office, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai - 400 001. ] Respondents ALONGWITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 416 OF 2011 Jitendra Brahmadutt Singh Thakur, ] Age : 63 Years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant of ] Mumbai, residing at 202, Madhav Ashram, ] Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (E), Mumbai - 400 077. ] Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra. ] 1 7. wp 415, 416 & 417-11.doc 2. The Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, HQ Office, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai - 400 001. ] Respondents ALONGWITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2011 Dinesh Jitendra Singh Thakur, ] Age : 34 Years, Adult, Indian Inhabitant of ] Mumbai, residing at 202, Madhav Ashram, ] Rajawadi, Vidyavihar (E), Mumbai - 400 077. ] Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Maharashtra, ] Through the Home Ministry, ] Government of Maharashtra. ] 2. The Commissioner of Police, ] Mumbai, HQ Office, Crawford Market, ] Mumbai - 400 001. ] Respondents Mr. Bipin Joshi for the Petitioners Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (per HARDAS, J): 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. Since the other petitions are similar to this petition, they have 2 7. wp 415, 416 & 417-11.doc been decided by this common order. 4. A limited grievance of the petitioner is a challenge to the interim order dated 31st December 2010 by which the Arms licence granted to the petitioners has been suspended. Meanwhile, it appears that the petitioners had preferred Appeals against the impugned order which were pending before the Appellate Authority. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 21st February 2011 directed the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeals preferred by the petitioners and to serve copies of the orders on the petitioners. At paragraph 4, the Division Bench further directed that if the appeals are dismissed, the petitioners will have to challenge the decision of the Appellate Authority by way of appropriate proceedings, if so advised. In that case, interim protection will continue in favour of the petitioners for a period of one week from the date of the service of the adverse order against the petitioners passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. The learned Counsel for the parties state that the Appellate Authority has given hearing to the petitioners but the petitioners are unaware as to the nature of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. 6. In that light of the matter, we direct the Appellate Authority to expeditiously hear the Appeals and in case, an adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of one week from the date of service of 3 7. wp 415, 416 & 417-11.doc the said order to enable the petitioners to avail such remedy as are available to the petitioners in law. In that light of the matter therefore, we do not find any reason to keep this petition pending. Accordingly Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 4 7. wp 415, 416 & 417-11.doc 5