1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3770 OF 2009 (Shrikrushna Wasudeo Dandade vs. Shridhar Vitthal Dandade & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 25, 2009. Heard Shri Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Gode, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 to 4. Shri Gandhi, learned counsel points out that lower authorities concurrently found that there was misappropriation and in spite of these findings, the Hon’ble Minister has remanded matter to ascertain the exact quantity thereof. He points out that because of other irregularities noticed, the Hon’ble Minister has imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- upon respondent No.1 and has also ordered confiscation of his security deposit. He states that in this situation the shop could not have been allowed to run again. He points out that Respondent No.1 has yet not commenced the operations of his shop. Shri Gode, learned counsel states that as the Hon’ble Minister has restored the shop and as finding as to misappropriation is yet to be reached finally, 2 Respondent No.1 has not challenged the impugned order. He states that in said enquiry, it can be demonstrated that there was no misappropriation. Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 is seeking time to obtain instructions in the matter. In view of the facts emerging and arguments of Shri Gandhi and Gode, learned counsel, request of the learned AGP is rejected. Prima facie it is apparent that the Hon’ble Minister has also found it necessary to impose fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon Respondent No.1 and to confiscate his security deposit. The explanation of Respondent No.1 for not challenging the order and reasons therefor cannot be said to be misconceived. The authorities below have found that there was misappropriation but exact quantity thereof has not yet been ascertained. The Hon’ble Minister has directed the enquiry for this purpose. In the circumstances, right of Respondent No. 1 to challenge adverse order is kept in tact. Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry as per orders of the Hon’ble Minister as early as possible and in any case by 31st January 2010. Till then, Respondents shall maintain status quo in relation to shop of Respondent No.1. Liberty to the parties to challenge the orders passed in said enquiry in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved by the said orders. 3 Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.