IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 697 OF 2009 SHRI RIDDESH MAHESH SUKHTANKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECTRETARY AND 14 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. M. B. da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Adv ocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for Respondent No. 7. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 25th January, 2010 P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order dated 19.6.2009 passed by this Court, the Mamlatdar disposed of the proceedings by an order dated 4.8.2009. 2. The learned Counsel submits that the Mamlatdar did not hold any inquiry into the matter and the order was passed in clear violation of this Court's order. 3. The Senior Counsel Mr. Nadkarni appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7 submits that under Devasthan Regulations a remedy of appeal is provided under Regulation 248. 4. Affidavit in reply is also filed of Respondent No. 15. The same is taken on record. 5. In the facts of the case, we find that the disputed questions are raised,and therefore, it would not be appropriate and reasonable to decide the same in exercise of our jurisdiction Article 226 and 227. Moreover, the Devasthan Regulations provide Appellate Forum to the petitioner for redressal of grievances. 6. In case the petitioner approaches the Appellate authority in view of Regulation 248, within two weeks from today, the appeal would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The appeal shall be heard on merits. The Appellate Authority to hear all the parties and pass appropriate and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 months from the date of service of notice. 7. All issues are kept open. 8. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion in the matter. 9. Petition disposed of. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. MF/-