1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2009 Smt. Meenadevi w/o R.K. Shrivastav An adult Indian inhabitant, Proprietress of R.K. Enterprises having address at 6102/3, Phase 4, GIDC, Post Vapi Taluka Pardi, Dist. Valsad, Gujarat. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 State of Maharashtra through Ld. Taluka Executive Magistrate Taluka Navapur, Navapur, Maharashtra. 2 Superintendentof Police Navapur Police Station, Dist. Nandurbar 3 Asian Engineering through its partner Mr. Shivanand Nanu an adult, Indian inhabitant occ business having address Chadod Colony, GIDC, Post Vapi Pardi, Dist. Valsad, Gujarat. 4 Balubhai Ranchodbhai Patel an adult, Indian inhabitant occ. Business having address at Gayatri Housing Society, GIDC Post Vapi, Tq. Pardi, Dist. Valsad Gujarat 5 R.K. Shrivastav 2 age adult, occ business having address at 6102/3, Phase 4, GIDC Post Vapi, Tq.Pardi Dist. Valsad, Gujarat .. RESPONDENTS Shri J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dighe, APP for the State. Shri S.V. Gangpurwala, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard Shri J.R. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dighe, learned APP for the State and Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Order under challenge is one passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Navapur on 3-3-2009 in exercise of powers conferred under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the contention of the petitioner that initially after serving notice on him, he caused his appearance before the authority on 17-2-2009 and sought adjournment for the purpose of presenting reply. Considering the request made by the petitioner, the matter came to be adjourned on 9-3-2009. However, after two days thereafter, an application came to be presented by the respondent herein and 3 considering the urgency exhibited by the respondent, interim order under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be issued. Obviously, the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate before passing the interim order did not offer an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who had already caused appearance before the Magistrate. It was also improper on the part of the Magistrate to entertain the application in the absence of the petitioner and specially when the matter is already adjourned to a subsequent date on the request made by the petitioner. Ex-parte order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate is obviously bad and ought not to have been issued. 4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, while directing the Taluka Executive Magistrate to extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, it is necessary to direct the Taluka Executive Magistrate to pass the order afresh. The order of status quo passed by this court on 19-3-2009 shall remain operative until further orders by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. The order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 3-3-2009 therefore stands quashed and set aside. The Taluka Executive Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The parties shall maintain status quo until the decision that may be rendered by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in pursuant to the instant order passed by this court. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.)