IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA/13848/2010 TAHERKHAN GULSHERKHAN PATHAN V/S THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Z P JALGAON ... Shri V.B.Anjanwadikar h/f Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for applicant, Shri Rahul Lodhi h/f Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, Adv. for respondents 1 & 2, Shri V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondent – State. … CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution as bhatta was not paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because of the sudden termination of the petitioner the petitioner suffered a mental shock and his family was also disturbed and therefore, he could not contact his counsel. 3. Learned AGP and learned Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 oppose the request and point out that there was a huge delay of four thousand days. 4. For non payment of bhatta, the petitioner cannot be blamed. Bhatta could have been paid by the office of his Advocate. 5. Hence the Civil Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Writ Petition No.2408 of 1995 is restored back. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl