1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8856 OF 2009 Pragati Mahila Mandal Gegaon .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents Mr.Siddheshwar B Kaloel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for Respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 15/10/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by respondent no.2, by which an application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.6.2009 passed by respondent no.3, has been dismissed. By the order dated 29.6.2009, respondent no.3 has suspended the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in the T 2 petition that against the order dated 29.7.2009, which is impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed revision application before respondent no.1. The petitioner has also filed a stay application along with the revision before respondent no.1. The petitioner further submitted that in view of the assembly elections, the concerned Minister was not available and, therefore, he has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 29.7.2009. Mr Kalel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are given to respondent no.1 to decide the revision filed by the petitioner on 21.8.2009 within time frame. He further submits that during pendency of the petitioner’s application challenging the order dated 29.6.2009 before respondent no.2, an order of stay was granted in favour of the petitioner and in view thereof, the petitioner continued to run the fair price shop till the order dated 29.7.2009 was communicated to the petitioner. The order dated 29.7.2009 was communicated to the petitioner on 17.8.2009. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that this petition can be disposed of by the following order. (i) The concerned Ministered or the Principal Secretary of the concerned department shall hear and decide the revision 3 application filed by the petitioner on 21.8.2009 challenging the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by respondent no.2 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. (ii)Pending the hearing and final disposal of the revision application, parties are directed to maintain status-quo. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (iii)While passing this order I shall not be understood to have examined and/or dealt with merits of the case. (iv)Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)