1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4938 OF 2009 (Sau. Sunita Gajendra Dhok vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2009. Heard Shri Shingane, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Futane, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The contention is, Additional Commissioner did not give opportunity to the petitioner to place her defence or to argue the matter. The support is taken from the judgment in the case of Mohammad Aziz Haq vs. Dilip Lohiya, reported at 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 482. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order sheets. The order sheets of Additional Commissioner show that the time was given to present petitioner initially on 28.05.2009 to file reply and thereafter from time to time. On 30.07.2009, R. & P. of Zilla Parishad was called for and matter was for final hearing on 06.08.2009. It is to be noted that the matter was fixed for final hearing on 17.06.2009 and thereafter on 10.07.2009. Last chance was given to the petitioner to file reply and on 2 16.07.2009, the matter was again adjourned for arguments. The matter was for arguments on 23.07.2009, 30.07.2009 as also on 06.08.2009. On 30.07.2009, because of objection raised by present petitioner, records of Chief Executive Officer were called for. On 06.08.2009, the counsel for present petitioner filed pursis and that has been recorded in the order sheet dated 06.08.2009. The matter was then closed for orders. The petitioner has shown Annexure – 3 with petition to urge that the application to call records was moved on 30.07.2009 and on 06.08.2009, the application for time to file reply was moved. It is further stated that on 06.08.2009, another application seeking adjournment was also moved on behalf of the petitioner and on 07.08.2009, as the time was not granted, her counsel communicated that the application for grant of time was rejected and though the petitioner was informed, she has not contacted. He, therefore, sent intimation on 07.08.2009 that he would withdraw Vakalatnama, if the petitioner did not contact him. Then a pursis was filed mentioning that matter was fixed on 06.08.2009, but as the petitioner did not contact the counsel, he wanted to withdraw Vakalatnama. Near the signature of counsel, it is written that pursis has been submitted on 01.09.2009. As urged by Shri Futane, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned AGP for respondents No. 1 3 & 2, the matter was before the Additional Commissioner, after report by Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner, therefore, had opportunity before CEO and she was given an opportunity by the Additional Commissioner. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was only interested in killing time. No case is made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE *GS.