IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2007. Jayprakash Nardev Kapse and others. ... PETITIONERS. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for R.Nos.7 to 9. Shri P.R. Tandale, Advocate for R.Nos.4 and 5. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Although the petitioners have made serious allegations in the petition, having regard to the reply affidavit filed by the respondents and in particular, the documents produced on record alongwith reply affidavit, we noticed that the Collector forwarded the complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, who is the competent officer to make inquiry in relation to such complaint. He, in turn, appointed the Block Development Officer to collect necessary material and submit his report after inquiry on the basis of which, he could form his final opinion. The Block Development Officer accordingly, submitted his report on 3rd November, 2006 to the Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Panchayat). The same refers to all the grievances made in the complaint and each of the grievances has been dealt with. Significantly, in this report, it is mentioned that the complainants did not remain present during the inquiry even though they were called upon to do so. The Chief Executive Officer, considering the report submitted by the Block Development Officer and related material, has formed his opinion that the allegations made in the complaint are devoid of merits and the matter needs to be closed. Moreover, we also noticed that similar complaints were filed even before the Lokayukta, which proceedings were eventually terminated by order dated 8th August, 2007 for the reasons recorded therein. 3. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the reliefs which were originally prayed in this petition to direct the respondents to initiate an inquiry and on the basis of finding in the said inquiry, to initiate criminal action against respondents No.1 to 5, do not survive for consideration. That is so because in the inquiry already conducted by the Chief Executive Officer, who is the competent authority, he has exonerated the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, nothing survives for our consideration. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The amount deposited by the petitioners in this Court may be made over to the Bar Association towards contribution made by the petitioners to Bar Association Library Fund. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*