1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1179 OF 1993 The Divisional Controller ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- S.N. Gaikwad ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr.M.K. Goyanka, advocate for petitioner. Mr.A.B. Gatne, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 11 st August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent is no more. It is stated that the respondent died in the year 2003. Since then, no steps have been taken to substitute his L.Rs. till the date. In view of the subsequent development, the Petition stands abated and as such, is disposed of. 3. It may be mentioned that Mr.Goyanka submitted that he has received instructions about the death of the respondent and desired to take steps for substitution of L.Rs. However, in view of the fact that he was in service till 1997, the fact of his death could 2 be asserted from the appropriate record. Mr.Gatne submits that the Provident Fund amount is also paid to the respondent, and therefore, knowledge could be attributed to the petitioner about the death. In view of such circumstances, the request for allowing the petitioner to take steps for substitution of the L.Rs. has been rejected and the Petition is disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp4625.10