(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1071 OF 2007 Ramesh s/o. Jadhav Patel, Age about 58 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Ramchandra Nagar, Shahda, Tahsil : Shahda, District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of Urban Development, Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Regional Director of Municipal Administration, C/o. Divisional Commissioner, Nashik. 3. Municipal Council, Shahda, Through its Chief Officer, Tahsil : Shahda, District : Nandurbar. 4. Collector, Collectorate Building, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. 5. Director, Municipal Administration, Directorate Building, 15th floor, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. A.A. More, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The petitioner has moved a motion with a view to seek correction in the order dated 12th February 2009, where under the Writ Petition has been disposed of by directing respondent no.3 to decide the representation made by the petitioner. 2. It is pointed out that two identical Writ Petitions were heard and disposed of, while disposing of this petition. In the other Writ Petition, direction has been rightly issued, that respondent no.3 to decide representation and in the present Writ (3) Petition, direction ought to have been issued to respondent nos. 3 and 5 to decide the representation of the petitioner. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 / Municipal Council, have no objection for carrying out the correction, as desired by the petitioner. 4. In the result, we direct that in paragraph 4 of the order dated 12th February 2009, add respondent no.5, so that the direction reads thus : " In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and direct respondent Nos.3 and 5 to decide the representations of the petitioner, referred to above in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. " 5. Accordingly, we direct that the direction contained in paragraph 4 of the order dated 12th February 2009 shall be read and acted upon, as indicated above. Correction to be (4) carried out forthwith. 6. Motion disposed of accordingly. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1071