1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2010 (Vitthal P. Dahikar & Ors. vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. Heard Shri Kalwage, learned counsel for the petitioners. The challenge in this writ petition is two folds. The order dated 03.12.2008 passed by Respondent No. 3 about mutation has been questioned. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have already approached the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) by moving appropriate application against that entry and order but no cognizance thereof has been taken. Shri Yengal, learned AGP, present in the court, states that he can represent respondents No. 1 to 3, however, he points out that on facts he has not received any instructions as this Court has not issued any formal notice in the matter. The impugned order is dated 03.12.2008. The challenge to that order in writ petition appears to be stale. If said order is appropriately challenged before Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 1 is legally required to dispose of that challenge in accordance with law. The 2 prayer (c) in writ petition seeks that direction. The copy of that application moved to SDO is produced before this Court as Annexure “K” at page 26. In these circumstances, without recording any finding, if any such application is received by Respondent No. 1 – SDO, Nagpur, the said authority shall attempt to decide the challenge therein in accordance with law as early as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order to it. Without making any observations on merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to learned AGP. JUDGE *GS.