agk (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3610 OF 2010 Jabbar Rasul Shaikh .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Avinash B. Avhad for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P for respondent No.1. An order was passed by the Collector under which the 2nd and 3rd respondents have been disqualified. Against the order of the Collector dated 26th March 2010, the said 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dated 16th April 2010, the order of disqualification has been stayed. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had filed a caveat, notice of the application for stay was not served to the petitioner. He submitted that without hearing the petitioner, agk (2) a blanket order of stay has been passed. 3 I have considered the submissions. The effect of the impugned order is that pending the substantive appeal, the operation and execution of the order of disqualification passed against the 2nd and 3rd respondents has been stayed. Interests of justice will be served if the appeal itself is ordered to be disposed of expeditiously. 4 Hence, writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event before the end of November 2010. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered with order of stay only on the ground that expeditious hearing of the appeal has been ordered. Therefore, the appeal will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the fact that this Court has not interfered with the order of stay. 5 The Appellate Authority to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.OKA, J)