vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4182 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4182 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4182 OF 2008 Sharad V. Ghalwadkar ... Petitioner V/s. The Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.M. Savagave for Petitioner CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition which has been filed in March 2008 challenges the award dated 24.11.1999. The award had been challenged by the Petitioner earlier by preferring Writ Petition No.170 of 2004. On 22.1.2004, the Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition as the learned advocate for the petitioner stated that he wanted to make a representation to respondent No.2 for reemployment. 2. Thereafter a fresh writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.2245 of 2005. By an order dated 7.4.2005, the petition was disposed of, directing the respondent bank to decide the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. : 2 : 3. A third writ petition was filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.2767 of 2005. That writ petition was also dismissed on 23.4.2007. While dismissing the same, the Division Bench observed thus: "1. The challenge to the award dated 24.11.1999 has become final, consequent on the petition withdrawing the petition with liberty to make representation. The Petitioner made the representation, that has been rejected and consequently this second Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had earlier filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.2245 of 2005, wherein the directions were given to appear before the Bank. It is after the decision came to be made which was communicated to the Petitioner on 18.11.2006, that he has once again approached this Court. 2. Respondent No.1 - Co-operative Bank is not State within the meaning of Article 12 and the Petitioner is not entitled to maintain this petition which is not maintainable. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed." (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought the same reliefs as he had prayed for in Writ Petition No.170 of 2004. In my opinion, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn his earlier writ petition filed for the same reliefs. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In any event, the present petition has been filed after a delay of almost nine years and cannot be entertained. : 3 : 6. Wit Petition is rejected.