1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. 1) WRIT PETITION No. 320/ 2011 (Mukund Ashru Sawale vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 2) WRIT PETITION No. 322/ 2011 (Sudhakar Namdeo Mehetre vs. The Zilla Parishad and another) 3)_ WRIT PETITION No. 323/ 2011 (Ramdas Daulat Barde vs. The Zilla Parishad and another) 4) WRIT PETITION No. 324/ 2011 (Dinkar Namdeo Nafade vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 5) WRIT PETITION No. 325/ 2011 (Ganesh S Kale vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 6) WRIT PETITION No. 326/ 2011 (Rambhau Bharambe vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 7)WRIT PETITION No. 327/ 2011 (Vitthal Deshmane vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 8)WRIT PETITION No. 328/ 2011 (Sadashiv Shenfad Satbhakare vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 9) WRIT PETITION No. 329/ 2011 (Pandharinath Jadhav vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 10) WRIT PETITION No. 477 / 2011 (Kashinath Ingole vs.The Zilla Parishad and another ) 11) WRIT PETITION No. 522/2011 (Ramzan Khan Faizalam Khan vs. The Zilla Parishad and another ) 2 AND 12) WRIT PETITION No. 321/ 2011 …............................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 14, 2011. Heard Advocate P.D.Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mrs. Warsale, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad and S/Shri Jaiswal/ Fulzele/ Jichkar/ Kankale, learned AGPs for respondent no.2. Writ Petition No. 321/2011 is not on today's Board. However since the controversy involved in the said matter being the same as involved in the above-referred matters, with the consent of the parties, W.P. No.321/2011 is taken on today's Board. Mrs.Warsale, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 Zilla Parishad, Buldana has pointed out that the replies have been filed only in nine 3 matters and as such, seeks time to file reply in the remaining matters. However, the controversy involved in all the above-referred petitions being identical, the reply filed in nine matters has been accepted as reply in other matters too. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the controversy is covered by our earlier judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 4094/2010 with bevy of petitions delivered on 14th June, 2011. Advocate Warsale, however, states that intervention of this Court is not necessary as the Divisional Commissioner has already issued necessary directions and those direction are being implemented by respondent no.1. Learned AGP appearing for respondent no.2 states that he is awaiting instructions but as directions are issued by the Divisional Commissioner, the same should be allowed to be implemented. In our judgment, we have permitted respective petitioners therein to make appropriate representation raising their claim within a period of four weeks and thereafter directed the Zilla Parishad to implement the directions as given in that judgment within further period of six weeks. As controversy is covered, it is not necessary for us to record reasons at length in the present matters. 4 Here, as Divisional Commissioner has already issued directions, we permit the petitioners time of four weeks from today to raise their claim with respondent no.1 and the respondent 1 shall, thereafter proceed to finalize the same within a further period of six weeks thereafter. With the above directions, Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare