:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6114 OF 2006 M/s. Anuraj Sugars Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.G. Ketkar for petitioner. Mr. A.A. Kubhakoni, Associate Adovcate General with Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. R.V.Govilkar with Mr. Abhay Patki for respondent no.3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar for respondent no.4 - intervener. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. Date : November 17, 2006. Date : November 17, 2006. Date : November 17, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Ketkar the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Govilkar the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3, Mr. Anturkar the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 - intervener and Mr. Kumbhakoni the learned Associate Advocate General appears for respondent no.1 - State Authority. 2. The petitioner has impugned the interlocutory :2: order passed by the Hon’ble Minister for Environment Protection on 5/9/2006 in a pending revision application under the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act, 1974 challening the order dated 15/5/2006 passed by the Appellate Authority. By our order dated 18/9/2006 ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e) has been granted. It would be, therefore, just and proper that the pending revision application is heard and decided as per law within a specified period. Mr. Kumbhakoni the learned Associate Advocate General agreed that the revision application could be decided within a period of two weeks. 3. We, therefore, direct that the pending revision application in which the impugned interlocutory order has been passed be heard and decided on its own merits as expeditiously as possble and in any case before 3rd December, 2006. The rights and contentions of the respective parties are left open. Undoubtedly, the revision application has to be decided after hearing all the parties concerned, including the interveners who appeared before us. :3: 4. The Ad-interim order passed by this court shall continue to operate till the revision application is decided and the order is communiated to the petitioner. 5. Petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (J.H. Bhatia, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)