1. Rule. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appears for the respondents and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, more particularly, Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy as provided under Section 27(A) of the Bombay Police Act and the same is pending.
2. What is challenged in the present petition is orders dated 28.4.2006 and 29.9.2008 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively. It transpires from the record that against that very order the Revision Application is filed.
3. Mr. Majmudar further submits that in view of the above facts, the interest of justice would be served, if the Court directs the authority before whom the Revision Application is pending, to expedite the hearing of the said Revision Application.
4. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has no objection if such direction is given.
5. Considering the above facts, the Revision Application filed by the petitioner before the respondent authority may be given priority and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the same may be heard and decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible latest by 30.04.2012.
6. It is also made clear that this Court has not examined the petition on merits and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also not raised any other contentions that are raised in the present petition and only on short ground the above direction is given. The respondent authority is directed to hear the said Revision Application as aforesaid, without being influenced by this order.
7. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted.
Sd/-
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT