WP 4404/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4404/2011 Madhav Chintaman Padvi V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri F.R. Tandale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer: "(B) The respondent no.1 be directed to quash and set aside the order of petitioner's suspension issued by respondent no.2 dated 22.04.2010 by deciding the appeal preferred by petitioner dated 07.05.2010 and reinstate the petitioner on his original post by giving all consequential benefits with retrospective WP 4404/11 2 effect to the petitioner, by issuing writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in like nature." Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks direction to respondent no.1 to decide his appeal within time frame, which is pending since May, 2010. We have perused the letter dated 29.7.2010 of the petitioner (Exhibit J to the writ petition) addressed to respondent no.1. It appears from the letter that hearing of the appeal was fixed on a particular date, however, the petitioner did not remain present for hearing. In view thereof, we are not inclined to grant the prayer as made in the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for seeking expeditious hearing of his appeal. If the petitioner does not want personal hearing in the appeal, he may say so in writing and apply to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on the basis of memo of appeal. If the petitioner makes WP 4404/11 3 any such application, the same may be considered on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that we have not examined merits of the case. We have also not examined the question whether the petitioner's appeal is maintainable before respondent no.1. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (S.B. Deshmukh, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 30.06.2011 ndk/c306113