1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.509 OF 2011 (Shyam Dnyaneshwar Kadam vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011 Heard Shri Khadse, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri Khadse, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has brought to our notice the order dated 26/11/2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5005/2009, which reads thus : “Heard Shri Khadse, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has submitted representation to the respondent no.3 for 2 redressal of his grievance and, therefore, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the said remedy, which is already undertaken by him.” Shri Khadse, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in spite of the above referred order, the representation of the petitioner is not decided by the respondent no.3 and, therefore, direction may be issued in this regard. It is no doubt true that by the said order, liberty was given to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of representation already undertaken by him and, therefore, now we make it clear that we expect the respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard as early as possible. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj