Judgment 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed an appeal under section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, challenging the order of externment, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application for stay of the impugned order. This application for stay has been filed on 31.10.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has still not decided the application for stay. 3. Mr. N.V. Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not deciding the application for stay, in effect, amounts to rejection of the petitioner’s application for stay without considering the merits thereof. I find substance in this contention advanced by the learned counsel. 4. The procedure adopted by the appellate authority, namely: of not passing any order at all on the application for stay can not be called as fair, just or reasonable. From the very nature of the application, such an application needs to be decided on merits, expeditiously, particularly if the appeal itself cannot be heard and disposed of expeditiously. 5. Since the procedure adopted by the appellate authority in not considering the application for stay on merits and keeping it pending is unfair and unjust, interference in the matter by exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is necessary. 6. In my opinion, the operation, execution and implementation of the externment order should be stayed till the application for stay of the impugned order, as made before the appellate authority, is decided by the said authority. 7. It is directed accordingly. 8. Save and except as aforesaid, no other order in the matter. 9. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.