(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 40 of 2009 Smt. Vandana Kalyan Sonsale, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Osmanagar, .. Appellant Taluka : Kandhar, (Original District : Nanded. petitioner) versus 1) Smt. Khushawartabai Madhav Bhise, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Osmanagar, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. 2) The Village Development Officer, Osmanagar, Taluka : Kandhar, Osmanagar Gram Panchayat, Taluka : Kandhar, District : Nanded. 3) The Additional Collector, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. D.B. Rode, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. S.K. Kadam, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 1ST SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant (original petitioner) challenges the order dated 6th March 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 1224 of 2009, to the extent of refusing to grant interim relief. The learned Single has issued "Rule" in the writ petition, however, refused to grant interim relief. 2. This court vide order dated 24th March 2009, while issuing notice, has directed the parties to maintain status quo until further orders. 3. Vide order dated 23rd July 2009, we have directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, Nanded, to conduct a discreet enquiry, as to whether the appellant has, in fact, given birth to a third child after the cut off date i.e. 13th September 2001, and submit a report. 4. Accordingly, report dated 21st August 2009 has been (3) submitted before this court. 5. Since the petition challenges the order vide which an interim relief was refused while admitting the petition, we find that it would be in the interest of justice, that the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for final disposal of the petition on its own merits and the order of status quo passed in the appeal is continued till final disposal of the writ petition. 6. Hence, we pass the following order : (i) The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to move the learned Single Judge for expeditious hearing of the Writ Petition. (ii) Since there is an interim order passed by this court on 24th March 2009, vide which the parties were directed to maintain status quo, we direct that the said interim order shall continue till disposal of the Writ Petition. (iii) Since interim order is operating against respondent no.1, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the request of respondent no. 1, for expeditious disposal of the Writ Petition, if so made. (iv) We make it clear, that we have not considered the merits of the report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, CID, Nanded, and the parties shall be at liberty to contest the correctness or otherwise of the same before the learned Single Judge. (4) 7. Appeal disposed of accordingly. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/40-lpa