1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2087 OF 2009 Preeti Praful Ambekar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Perused Petition. 3. The petitioner became full time Librarian in the year 1984. The audit objections appear to have been raised in the year 1984 itself which is clear from page 24 of the Petition. The endorsement in the service book was also made about drawal of excess salary by the petitioner. The petitioner did not take any steps or rather did not make any grievance against that said endorsement almost for a period of 11 years. 4. The petitioner, for the first time, made representation somewhere in the year December, 2005 followed by another representation in the month of April, 2006 and, thereafter, in the month of November, 2006 filed Writ Petition bearing No.6091 of 2006 which was heard on 26th November, 2007. When the Writ 2 Petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew Writ Petition with liberty to make representation to the Deputy Director of Education, which has been decided in the month of January, 2008. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is needless to mention that in the earlier Writ Petition, the question of delay could not be considered since the petitioner withdrew the Writ Petition expressing desire to make representation to the Deputy Director of Education. The representation has now been decided for the reasons recorded therein with which no fault can be found, especially, when the decision of the auditor was accepted by the petitioner without any challenge almost for a period of 11 years. The petitioner has acted upon the said decision and, accordingly, drew salary for a period of 11 years. Under these circumstances, we do not see a reason to entertain this Writ Petition. That way present Writ Petition suffers from delay and latches. 4. The petitioner states that as yet no recovery has been made and it is needless to mention that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 521] there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner. The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)