IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.160 OF 2009. Mohd. Skhakil Mohd. Sardar. .... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.R. Nikam, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.R. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent No.3. A.G.P. for State. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT: 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 15th October, 2008 issued by the Joint District Registrar Class-I (L.G.), Parbhani by letter Outward No.Stamp/Isarpawti/08/3274 and the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Parbhani below application Exh.81 in Spl. Suit No.64/1999. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Joint District Registrar Class-I has been passed without hearing the petitioner. He placed reliance on section 32A(4) of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 and submitted that the said sub-section (4) of Section 32A of the said Act contemplates that before any order is passed, the concerned authority should hear the concerned person and then only pass necessary orders. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the instant case, the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore, on that ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that the impugned order can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 32B of the said Act. Therefore, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction. The learned A.G.P. contended that in view of the remedy of appeal available under the Statute, this Court may not entertain the writ petition. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for respective parties, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 32A(4) mandates that before any order is passed, the concerned person should be heard. This position is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of this, the petitioner has made out a case. However, I find considerable substance in the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that in view of alternate remedy of appeal being available, this Court may not exercise writ jurisdiction. 5. To strike balance and in view of the remedy of appeal being available under the Statute, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and file appeal. The appellate authority to take into consideration the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act as well as the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing this petition while entertaining the plea of limitation and delay in filing the appeal. Since the order impugned was passed without hearing the petitioner, this Court by interim order dated 19th January, 2009 granted ad interim relief by which further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1999 came to be stayed. The said interim relief to continue till final disposal of the appeal that will be filed by the petitioner and three weeks thereafter. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition to enable him to file appeal. Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not entertained the matter on merits and all points are kept open. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will file appeal within fifteen days from today. Upon filing such an appeal, the concerned appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal within three months from today. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn accordingly. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/*