JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Sahish Mahambrey for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Munj, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Abhay Nachinolkar for Respondent No.3.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.04.2021 by which the objections raised by the petitioner came to be summarily rejected possibly because an adjournment was applied for on behalf of the petitioner and the same was rejected. The order records that the advocate for the petitioner refused to argue the matter.

3. Mr. Mahambrey submits that the adjournment should have been granted and in any case, the impugned order is bereft of any reasons. He therefore submits that the impugned order may be set aside.

4. The record bears out that the petitioner presumed that an adjournment will be granted on 15.04.2021. The adjournment was declined by the authorities at which point of time the advocate for the petitioner, it appears, did not make any further submissions.

5. However, having regard to the fact that there are no reasons in the impugned order, yet another opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. In fact, by an interim order made on 29.04.2021, the petitioner was permit