1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1090 of 1996. Mrs.Vandana Laxman Diwale ..vs.. Shri Shivaji Education Society and two others. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mrs.Mugdha Chandurkar Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Kaptan Adv. for respl no.1 and 2. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B.VARALE,JJ. DATED : 6th August, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are not getting any response from the petitioner to their letters. She further states that she cannot argue the petition for want of instructions. In view thereof, we have perused the prayers made in the writ petition. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 31/3/1998. It is not clear whether the termination was challenged by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner, however, amended the prayer clause in Jaunary, 2002 and challenged her termination order also in the writ petition. Insofar as termination order dated 31/3/1998 is 2 concerned, the petitioner ought to have challenged it in an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.Act before the School Tribunal. We find that with the passage of time the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting this writ petition further and therefore, she is not coming forward to give instructions to her Advocate. In the circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this petition for non-prosecution. Order accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. chute