IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 359 OF 2010 SHRI. SUDHIR KERKAR, JT. MAMLATDAR -III ... Applicant Versus DARSHANA NARULKAR AND ORS ... Respondent Shri. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Applicant(Original R-5) Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr.A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for (original) Respondents nos.1,2. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 17th August, 2010 P.C: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant who is the fifth respondent in the disposed of petition. The writ petition no.359 of 2010 was disposed of on 1st July, 2010 by passing the following order: "P.C: The learned Advocate General on instructions states that the order dated 19th November, 2009 (Annexure-J) shall stand withdrawn. He states that the State shall act in accordance with order dated 8th October, 2009 passed in writ petition no.478 of 2009. The substantive prayer in this writ petition is for quashing an order dated 19th November, 2009. We accept the statements of the learned Advocate General. In view of the statements, the petition does not survive. However, all the contentions of the parties are kept open. The petition is accordingly disposed of". 2. The grievance of the applicant is that though he was a party to the writ petition, he was not heard before passing the order. 3. In the order dated 1st July, 2010, we have recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General made on instructions that the order dated 19th November, 2009 (Annexure-J) shall stand withdrawn. We have further recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General that the State shall act in accordance with order dated 8th October, 2009 passed in writ petition no.478 of 2009. This Court has not decided the matter on merits but has disposed of the petition in view of the aforesaid statements of the learned Advocate General, on the ground that the petition did not survive. 4. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the State Government of withdrawing the order dated 19th November, 2009, the remedy of the applicant is to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the said decision of withdrawal of the order. We keep the remedy of the applicant and his contentions in that behalf open. However, no case is made out for recalling the order dated 1st July, 2010. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the application is rejected. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ap/-