Bhaskar B. Bhosle Prop. Of ... vs State Of Maharashtra Summons ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 813 Bom

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, C.J.

1. Rule. Smt. J.S. Pawar, learned Additional Government Pleader appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent nos. 1,3,5 and 6. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. This petition is filed for appropriate order directing the appellate authority to pass an order on an application for stay and till then no action be taken for closing of the business of the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, an order of suspension of licence was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police respondent no.3 herein on February 20, 2003 and the licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of thirty days. In the operative part of order, it was stated as under:

^^vkiu vfiy nk[ky d:u RHkkoj LFkfxuh vkns'k izkIr dbu u ?ksyO;kl] 30 fjoklkusrj vkiksvki ijokuk yhl ¼30½ fnol fuycaukps vkns'k vaeykb ;syhy**

4. The above portion specifically recites that if the petitioner will not file appeal before the appellate authority and will not get an appropriate order of stay, it will be implemented on completion of thirty days.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in accordance with the provisions of Section 162 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner has preferred an appeal before on 13th March. 2003. It was also stated that alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal, an application for stay was made. A copy of the said application is also placed on record of the petition.

6. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that neither the appeal was heard nor an order was passed on application for stay by the appellate authority and since thirty days are over, the authorities under the Act are insisting for implementing the order dated February 20, 2003. It was, therefore, submitted that till some order is passed on application for stay, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, respondent no.3 deserves to be stayed.

7. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the order passed by the third respondent is subject to appeal and in face. an appeal is filed within the stipulated period, and alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal, an application for stay is also filed, it is obligatory on the appellate authority to pass an appropriate order on application for stay. Since, no order was passed by the appellate authority, in our opinion, the operation of the order of suspension deserves to be stayed till an application for stay is decided. We, therefore, direct the appellate authority to pass an appropriate order on application for stay of the petitioner. Till then, the order impugned in the appeal, shall not be implemented. Let such an order on an application for stay be passed within four weeks from today.

Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by Sheristedas/Personal Secretary of this Court.