1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5746 OF 2009 Kusumtai W/o.Prabhakar Wakharkar, Age-72 years, Occu-Social Service and Household, Residing at 34, Prabhakar Smruti, Wakharkar Nagar, Dhule, through her nominee, Shri.Dullabh S/o.Dhondu Choudhari, Age-68 years, Occu-Pensioner, Residing as above. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Municipal Corporation, Dhule, Through its Commissioner, 3. Shri.Samarth Aojinath Baba, Samajik Bahuuddeshi Sanstha, Dhule, having its Office located at Plot No.154, Nateshwar Colony, near Wakharkar Nagar, Dhule, through its Chairman, Mr.Kishanrao S/o.Vithalrao Bharaskar, Age-45 years, Occu-Business, Residing at above address. RESPONDENTS Mr.Hemant Surve, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.M.S.Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent no.3 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) 2 DATE : 16/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for directing respondent no.1 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on 13/07/2009. In the alternate, the petitioner prays for directing respondents to main status-quo during the pendancy of the appeal. 2. In the light of the reliefs which are sought for by the petitioner, we issue rule making it returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner who had filed Writ Petition No. 1128/2009, withdrew the said petition with liberty to file an appeal before the first respondent. This Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty and continued the order of status- quo which is operating from 18/02/2009 for the period of 3 weeks. Accordingly the order of status-quo by efflux of time came to an end. According to the petitioner, the appeal accompanied by application praying for interim relief is pending consideration before respondent no.1. Various reasons are attributed by the petitioner in the appeal and the stay application not being decided. According to us, it is not necessary for us to deal with the merits or demerits of the contentions of the petitioner in that respect. It would however suffice to state that the appeal ought to be decided at an early date since the petitioner has prayed for interim relief, at least the application by which the petitioner 3 has prayed for interim relief needs to be heard expeditiously. 4. We have heard Shri.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1. It is not necessary to issue any notice to respondent no.2. We have heard Shri.M.S.Sonwane, on behalf of respondent no.3. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and direct respondent no.1 to decide the appeal in accordance with Law within 2 months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. We grant liberty to the petitioner to request respondent no.1 for expeditious hearing of the application for stay. If such request is made, the respondent no.1 shall deal with in accordance with Law. Since the appeal has already been filed , according to us this Court does not have the necessary jurisdiction of either granting any interim relief or in continuing the interim relief which was granted earlier. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy of this order duly authenticated by Shirastedar of this Court be provided to either counsel on request. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5746-09