1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1063 OF 2009 Janemiya Abdul Majid } Age : 70 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Dongargaon, Tq. Naigaon, } Dist. Nanded. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Minister, Food, Civil } Supply & Consumer Protection } Department, Mantralaya, } Mumbai – 32. } 2. The Minister } Food, Civil Supply & Consumer } Protection Department, Mantralaya, } Mumbai – 32. } 3. The Deputy Commissioner } Degloor, Dist. Nanded. } 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, } Degloor, Dist. Nanded. } 5. The District Supply Officer, } 2 Nanded. } 6. Mainuddin Yadullah Sayyed } Age : 35 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o Dongargaon, Tq. Naigaon, } Dist. Nanded. } .... RESPONDENTS Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for State. Mr. V.P. Kadam, Counsel for Respondent No. 6. [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 29/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, N.H.Borade, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of State and Mr. V.P. Kadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6. 3 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 3/12/2008 passed by the Respondent no. 2 and granted interim stay for the period of three months in Revision Application No. 927 of 2008. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6/ applicant in Revision Application No. 927 of 2008 states that matter is already closed for orders on 19/11/2008. Once the matter is closed for order, there is no question of entertaining the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even the interim order passed on 3/12/2008 was only for the period of three months and same is the subject matter of the present petition. Considering the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 6, nothing survive in the present Writ Petition and the same is rejected. Rule is discharged accordingly. [ K. K. TATED ] JUDGE knp/WP1063.09 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12