( 1 ) WP 1830/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1830 OF 2011 Late Bhaskarrao Patil Sarwajanaik Wachanalaya Javalga, Taluka Devani, District Lature PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondents CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 18th March, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No. 1 to decide their representation dated 11th October, 2010, within time frame. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5188 of 2009, and this Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, made the following observations, vide order dated 6th August, 2010. "2. In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we would not interfere in the matter. The petitioner is entitled to file comprehensive representation which would be gone into and decision be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on ( 2 ) WP 1830/11 the judgment in the matter of Renuka Sitaram Dhoke vs. Chief Executive Officer and others reported in 2008(3) Bom. C.R. 392 in support of contention that the principles of natural justice were not followed. 3. In the facts of the case, the petition stands rejected. petitioner is entitled to file fresh representation to the authority in respect of the prayer made herein. 4. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending civil application, if any does not survive and stands disposed of." In pursuance of this order, petitioner made comprehensive representation on 23rd August, 2010. We have perused the said representation. From bare perusal of the representation, it is clear that it is not comprehensive, as the petitioners were expected to make. The said representation came to be rejected vide order dated 23rd August, 2010. The petitioners have not challenged the said order, and by the present writ petition seeking direction to consider their fresh representation in the light of subsequent events. We are not inclined to issue such direction. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/