1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2010 in W. P. No. 2257 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Natthu Ramji Tijare) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 21 of 2010 in W. P. No. 1671 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Gangadhar Kushal Ballare) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 2010 in W. P. No. 1593 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Babulal Zibanji Ban) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 26 of 2010 in W. P. No. 1658 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Gajanan Vithoba Nagrale) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 28 of 2010 in W. P. No. 1692 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Rambahu Natthu Raut) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 2010 in W. P. No. 2040 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Jayprakash Madanlal Chauhan) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 32 of 2010 in W. P. No. 2253 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Dhanraj Natthuji Wanjari) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 33 of 2010 in W. P. No. 1528 of 2009 (The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur ...VERSUS... Mohd. Ayub Nizamuddin) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. V.G.Wankhede, Advocate for Appellant Mr. S.N.Dandekar, Advocate for Respondent in LPA Nos.21/10, 25/10, 28/10 and 31/2010. C ORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16th June, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2 2. These Letters Patent Appeals challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellants in all the appeals, in terms of the order dated 15/4/2009, passed in a group of five writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 269/2009, 4537/2008, 4749/2008, 986/2009 and 1363/2009. There is no dispute that the issues/questions raised and involved in all these matters are identical. 3. This Court while dealing with L.P.A. No. 271/2009 in W. P. No. 4537/2008 and L.P.A. No. 260/2009 in W.P. No. 1363/2009, filed by the appellants therein challenging the order dated 15/4/2009, passed in aforementioned writ petitions, for the reasons recorded in the orders dated 06/10/2009 & 4/12/2009, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals. In view thereof, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 260/2009 and L.P.A. No.271/2009 on 06/10/2009 and 04/12/2009, respectively, and prayed for dismissal of these Letters Patent Appeals in terms of those orders. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for the appellant did not make any further submission and fairly conceded that these appeals can also be disposed of in terms of the orders dated 06/10/2009 and 04/12/2009. 4. In the circumstances, we dismiss all the Letters Patent Appeals in terms of the orders passed by this Court dated 06/10/2009 and 04/12/2009 in L.P.A. No. 260/2009 and 271/2009, respectively. JUDGE JUDGE 3 Diwale