1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4243/2009 (SURYAKANT NARAYANRAO KAWALKAR VS. SUDHAKAR KESHAVRAO RAUT AND OTHERS) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri M.Y.Wadodkar, Advocate, for the applicant. Shri Kadu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 AGP for respondent NO.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 08, 2010. Heard. Advocate Kadu states that costs as ordered by impugned order have already been received by the petitioner and hence,this Court should not interfere in use of discretion by the lower authority. He invites attention to Annexure R-III to show that costs are received on 19.9.2009. He further states that affidavit/reply also contains the statement in this respect in paragraph No.5. Advocate Wadodkar is seeking time to obtain instructions in this respect from the petitioner. I find that reply has been filed on 20th January, 2010 itself. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant adjournment and writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as no interference is warranted. JUDGE Rvjalit.