1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1463/2011 (Vinayak V. Ingole VERSUS M.S.R.T.C. & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.. V. Jagdale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Wankhede, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 30 , 2011 . Heard. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that both the Courts did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 restraining the respondents to act upon the show cause notice dated 23.10.2010 issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated. The Court, on an appreciation of the documents on record, came to a conclusion that the petitioner had not made out a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the petitioner. The Courts found that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of injunction at that stage of proceedings as the petitioner was found to be indulging in illegal activities. The findings recorded by the Court appear to be just and proper and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 2 At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be granted fifteen days time to reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as the time to file reply has expired as the petitioner was prosecuting the matter before the Courts. The learned counsel for the respondents does not seriously oppose the prayer made by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is fair and reasonable. The petitioner is, therefore, granted fifteen days time to reply the show cause notice. However, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE