1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4519 OF 2006 Rajendra Gulabsingh Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mrs. A.S. Rasal, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 5. ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 12TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the having regard to the stand taken in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No.6 dated 8.12.2006, nothing would survive for consideration in this petition. The only observation that needs to be made is that the respondent would abide by the assurance given in the reply affidavit in particular in para 10, at page 54, which reads thus:- “As stated above the first three individual works from 00/000 to 00/900, 0/900 to 1/800 and 1/800 to 2/700 kms of the 2 subject matter road have been already sanctioned in the meeting dated 6.12.2006, the further appropriate procedure in that respect would be followed according to the norms. The rest of the two proposals from 2/700 to 3/600 and 3/600 to 4/500 kms as stated above will be placed before the said District Level Competent Committee for consideration in due course.” 2 We have no difficulty to accept this limited request of the petitioner. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/