(1) WP. 2616.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2616 OF 2011 Nagu @ Nagnath Gangaram Jinkle PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press prayer clause (B) in the Writ Petition. Prayer clause (A) in the Writ Petition reads thus:- "(A) Kindly issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ in the like nature thereby direct the Respondent no. 1 to 3 to forthwith decide proposal for inclusion of 8 village Panchayats viz. (1) Manur, (2) Sangam, (3) Bamani (Thadi), (4) Makali, (5) Ilegaon, (6) Mashti (7) Shelgaon (Thadi) and (8) Patoda (Thadi) and 3 Co-operative Societies viz. (1) Kundalwadi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., (2) WP. 2616.2011 Kundalwadi, (2) Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ilegaon (Thadi) and (3) Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Sangam in the market area of Respondent No.4-Dharmabad APMC." 2. Learned A.G.P. on instructions submits that the competent authority will take steps for inclusion of the 8 villages mentioned in the prayer clause, in the market area of respondent no.4-A.P.M.C. and shall complete the process within a period of six months from today. Her statement is recorded and accepted. In view of the statement, nothing further survives in the Writ Petition. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. 3. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the case. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] arp