(1) WP 1264.2011+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1264 OF 2011 Shakeel Aminsab Tupdikar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO.2776 OF 2011 Shaikh Shaker Shaikh Ahmed PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. In Writ Petition no. 1264 of 2011, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.01.2011. The perusal of page no.4 of the impugned order would reveal that the hearing of the matter has taken place on 29.7.2009. It can thus clearly be seen that the (2) WP 1264.2011+ order impugned has been passed after a period of almost 1 year and 6 months. 3. In Writ Petition no. 2776 of 2011, the petitioner challenges the order dated 03.03.2011. Perusal of page no.4 of the impugned order would reveal that the hearing had taken place on 26.8.2009. It can thus be seen that in the present case also the impugned order has been passed after a period of 1 year and 6 months from the date on which the hearing had taken place. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal and ors. Vs. Anupkumar and others AIR 2003 Supreme Court 689 (1) has held that long delay in the date of hearing and the date on which the judgment is pronounced itself is a sufficient ground for quashing and setting aside the said order. 5. In that view of the matter, both the Petitions deserve to be allowed on this short ground. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) in both the Petitions. Respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners on (3) WP 1264.2011+ its own merits, in accordance with law within a period of six (6) months from today. [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/