(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2006 Sameer Chand Shaikh & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.949 OF 2006 Ashok Pandurang Banne & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.950 OF 2006 Datta Dinkar Pandit & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.951 OF 2006 Sagairaj Das Satyango & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.952 OF 2006 Sanjay Vasant Yadav & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH (-2-) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2006 Satish Ashok Kamble & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2006 Rajkumar Arick Swamy & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.955 OF 2006 Abraham Sammuel Pawar & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.956 OF 2006 Satish Nathan Salve & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2006 Nitin Isrial Kankanala & Ors.... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for the Petitioners. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State. Ms. Sapna Rachure i/b. T.N. Tripati & Co., for respondent No.2. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. (-3-) DATED: 16th December, 2008 DATED: 16th December, 2008 DATED: 16th December, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . All these petitions are disposed off by this common order. 2. We find that in the order dated 21st August, 2006 this Court had observed that parties are at liberty to move this Court once the investigation in to the cases are completed and charge sheet is filed so that the petition can be finally disposed of. We are informed that since then the charge sheet has been filed. 3. We are also informed that the Builder who was not a party to these proceedings had moved the Supreme Court in respect of some directions issued by this Court in its order dated 21st August, 2006. In our opinion, that challenge will be dealt with independently as the builder is not a party in these proceedings. We also find that initially a learned single of this Court had directed that Departmental proceedings not to be proceeded with till next date i.e. on 8thMay, 2006. Another learned Bench by order dated June 22, 2006 observed that the said order had not been continued and there is no stay on the Departmental proceedings. In the order dated 21st August, 2006 we find that the Departmental (-4-) Enquiry initiated against the petitioners was stayed. That petition was only to challenge the C.R. No.228. Power to initiate Departmental proceedings is independent in so far as criminal proceedings are concerned and as such the question of this Court granting stay in Departmental proceedings does not arise. Considering what we have set out above, it will be open to the petitioners to move the trial Court for discharge, if they are so entitled. 4. With the above observations, all the above Writ Petitions disposed off. Rule discharged. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)