10-wp-560-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2010 Anuradha Shantanu Gandhi ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents Shri. Shashi K.Jain advocate for petitioner Shri. Vishal Thadhani i/b Veena Thadhani advocate for respondent no.3 Ms. P.S.Cardozo AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard both sides. The challenge is to the impugned order dated 10th December, 2009 of the Commissioner of State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was not heard despite a caveat being filed. She ought to have been heard even on the point of interim order. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and that of the Collector be restored. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the only contesting respondent no.3 that copy of the caveat was not received or else notice would have been given to 1 10-wp-560-10.doc the petitioner. 3. In my view, since the challenge is to the interim order, no useful purpose will be served by going into rival contentions on merits at this stage. It is further found that since the interim order is in force from 10th December, 2009, it will not be of any use to scrutinize the correctness or legality or validity thereof. Instead, parties would be better of if the Appeal No. 343 of 2009 itself is directed to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Commissioner of State Excise to hear Appeal No. 343 of 2009 and pass final orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from today. 5. Parties to appear before the Commissioner of State Excise on 4th August, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. Needless to state that the appeal should be disposed of within this period and if the Commissioner is unable to do so, for any reason, the petitioner can apply for vacating the interim order dated 10th December, 2009. It is also clarified that all contentions of both sides are kept open. Equally, the Commissioner of State Excise would be well advised not to pass any ex-parte interim orders and if there is any such requirement and urgency, he should record reasons as to why he is passing 2 10-wp-560-10.doc urgent ex-parte interim orders and if urgency so demands, he must pass such orders to restrict their operation to a reasonable period within which, the affected party can be given notice and liberty to apply for vacating it. In other words, the ex-parte ad-interim orders should be made on the touchstone of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] 3