1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2231 of 2007. [Dr. Ishwar S/o Yadavrao Watile] Vs. [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. Shri AJ Kadu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AD Sonak AGP for R-1 to 3. Shri VV Naik, Advocate for R-4. Coram: D.D. SINHA AND SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK,JJ. Dated : 11th FEBRUARY 2008. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition was that the petitioner was likely to be substituted by another adhoc employee. However, 2 the learned AGP and learned Counsel Shri Naik for ZP have made a statement that the petitioner has been given the appointment on ad hoc basis. Though the Counsel for the petitioner states that till this date, the said order has not been received by the petitioner, be that as it may, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respective Counsels. 3. In view of above, nothing survives in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 4. Learned AGP states that the State could not deposit the cost of Rs.750/- as directed by this Court vide order dated 3 23-1-2008 within the stipulated period, and therefore, the Office may be directed to accept the same. 5. In the circumstances, the Office is directed to accept the costs of Rs.750/- from the State within one week from today. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm