1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 768 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 288 of 2010 Mrs. Ratnamala W/o Madan Gharoade ...VERSUS.. State of Maharashtra and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. S.M.Puranik, Advocate for the petitioner/applicant. Mr. Anoop Parihar, A.G.P for Resp. No.1. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16th August, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant. By this civil application, the applicant/ petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 08/7/2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 228 of 2010. While disposing of the writ petition in view of the statement made on affidavit by respondent no.2, we observed that the other prayers in the writ petition cannot be and need not be considered. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner has invited our attention to prayer clause (b) of the writ petition. By this prayer, the applicant sought direction to respondent no.3 – Gram Panchayat to remove all encroachments made by all the residents of 2 Shegaonkar layout and free the internal roads for easy movement of traffic. Though, we find the prayer vague, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for such prayer by adding the alleged encroachers as party respondents and after giving further details in respect of the alleged encroachment. With these observations, the review application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale