1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1301 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4885 OF 2008 (Pankaj Jagatrao Jayale .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri R.M. Mardikar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 08TH JULY, 2010. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This LPA impugns the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the appellant's application for being impleaded as respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 4885/2008 has been rejected. The impugned order reads thus :- “This is an application by resident of a locality in which, construction over a plot which has been in dispute and in respect of which the State Government has passed impugned order on 5th August, 2008. The applicant was not party to the proceedings, which led to passing of the order impugned. The application is, therefore, rejected”. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that right from inception, this appellant has been pursuing the matter with the government and, therefore, he was necessary party to the writ petition. There is no dispute that the appellant was not party at any stage of the proceeding. The writ petition is arising from the order passed by the State Government dated 05.08.2008 by which 2 the resolution passed by the Corporation to re-convey the property to the appellant has been set aside. Merely because the appellant is the resident of the locality, he cannot be allowed to intervene in such proceeding. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.