1 wp318110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3181 OF 2010 Duraj Abdul Kadir Ambikar ...Petitioner VERSUS The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalyan, & Anr. ...Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3182 OF 2010 Asmat Abdul Hamid Javare ...Petitioner VERSUS The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalyan, & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S.R. Chitnis, Senior Advocate, with Mrs. V.R. Raje for the Petitioners in both matters Dr. F.R. Shaikh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State in Cri. W.P. No.3181 of 2010 Mr. J.P. Yagnik, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State in Cri. W.P. No.3182 of 2010. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2010 2 wp318110 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Chitnis, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners. He has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar v. Dy. Commr. of Police, The State of Maharashtra, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 372, in particular, paragraph 9 thereof, to contend that the show-cause notice in question does not comply with the requirements predicated by the Apex Court. In addition to this judgment, he wanted to rely on other decisions of this Court. However, in our opinion, the contentions raised in the petition can be conveniently agitated before the authority who has issued notice. It can be decided by the said Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. 2. In the circumstances, we keep all questions in these petitions open to be decided by the said authority. We have no manner of doubt that the concerned authority will examine the efficacy of the Supreme Court decision and other decisions pressed into service by the petitioners before this Court. 3. Petitions disposed of on the above terms, keeping all questions open. A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.