FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2011 "Gahininath Honaji Damale Vs. The 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. 1 Mr. V.D. Badakh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner has moved for speaking to minutes of the order. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has forwarded proposal to respondent No.2 and the same is pending before respondent No.2. It is, however, submitted that the respondents are incorrectly transcribed in the order. . He further submits that instead of words, " to comply with the directions issued by respondent No.2 on 7th August, 2010" , a direction ought to have been issued to respondent No.2 to decide the proposal submitted by respondent No.3 on 7th August, 2010. 2] The motion is allowed. Wherever, respondent No.2 is mentioned, it should be read as respondent No.3 and wherever, respondent No.3 is mentioned, it should be read as respondent No.2. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2011 "Gahininath Honaji Damale Vs. The 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. 2 . The 2nd para. of the order stands deleted and substituted with the following paragraph. "Petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the proposal submitted by respondent No.3 on 7th August, 2010, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within 3 months from today." [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-